(Please welcome back John Dean to the FDL Book Salon who is here to discuss his book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. It’s also his birthday — jh)
In 2002, in Worse Than Watergate, Dean explored the Bush Administration’s penchant for secrecy for secrecy’s sake. In 2006, in Conservatives Without Conscience, he wrote about the Republican party’s drift into right-wing extremism, steeped in authoritarianism.
Now, with a little more than a year left in the current Administration, Dean focuses a wide-angle lens on the state of our government, contending that President Bush and the Republican Party have mangled it to the point that it no longer serves the American people.
Dean is not without hope–he lays out a plan for how the next administration can fix the mess. However, he also ends this book with a warning: Since the Republicans have veered dangerously off-course, only the Democrats can be trusted to repair the damage done.
Dean argues that the Republicans have made a wreck of all three branches of government–Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary. His focus is not on Republican policies of the last seven years, but rather on how Republicans have neglected, or mangled beyond recognition, the lawful and legitimate processes built into our Constitution and laws.
Compromised processes, Dean argues, inexorably lead to bad policy.
Dean assails Congress for its virtual total neglect of a process that is at the heart of the doctrine of the separation of powers–oversight of the Executive branch. In addition, he faults Congress for ignoring the reports of its own General Accountability Office (GAO), condoning the White House’s insistence on secrecy, and tolerating (and outright supporting, in some cases) Bush Administration policies that have given us Iraq and a host of supposed “anti-terrorism” measures that reject the basic principles not only of our Constitution, but those of international law, including the Geneva Conventions.
In addition, Dean faults the Republicans and their authoritarian tactics for seeing to it that Congress doesn’t get much done. (Dean believes, however, that the atmosphere is more bipartisan since the Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 elections.)
Dean is not without hope: Our government can be fixed, but, at this point in time, only by a Democratic administration. He believes, as he wrote in Without Conscience, that the core of today’s Republican Party is authoritarian in character, and dedicated to making big corporations richer through the creation of bigger and more government. In this sense, the Party has utterly betrayed its traditional Republican small-government ideals.
Dean is quick to point out that we don’t need government reform to fix broken government; we just need to have people in power who are willing to play by the rules. Having laid out how Republicans don’t “play fair” with the processes of government, using their own processes to benefit themselves and special interests, Dean argues that we must insist that government run the way it is supposed to.
Congressional representatives are supposed to act for the good of their constituents, not their parties. There are rules for how proposed legislation is supposed to make its way through committees, and to votes. The President is the President of all the people and he (or she) is supposed to uphold the laws and Constitution, not become a potentate who rules in secret and flouts the laws with signing statements meant to make them merely optional.
Federal judges are supposed to decide constitutional issues and interpret the law. Thus, judges who march in lock-step under any ideological banner are anathema to the principle of the judiciary as a constitutionally co-equal branch of government. A judiciary captured by the Executive’s party, and acting in disregard of the law, is simply a branch of the White House.
Dean states what anyone who listens to the Republican candidates’ debates already knows: Every current Republican candidate (except Libertarian Ron Paul) would, if elected, continue down the path of Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II and appoint judicial fundamentalists who will, in fact, legislate from the bench (the very sin Republicans accuse Democratic-appointed judges of committing). These jurists will shape the law to benefit special interests and diminish individual rights.
(Elaine Cassel writes for Findlaw)
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Howard Dean, Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes John Geyman, M.D. : Do Not Resuscitate
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Senator Byron Dorgan, Reckless!: How Debt, Deregulation and Black Money Nearly Bankrupted America
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Bruce Bartlett, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes James K. Galbraith – The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Mr. Dean, it is such an honor to have you here at FDL. Per Jane’s post yesterday, your willingness to respond so thoughtfully and insightfully to so many of us, made an indelible impression. For your vigorous and extremely articulate critiques of the Bush administrations, our nation owes you a great debt.
I purchased my copy of BROKEN GOVERNMENT today (through FDL), so my question, if you care to respond, has to do with Irving Scooter Libby. In light of Bush’s use of his authority to commute Libby’s sentence, is Libby’s only excuse for not testifying the possibility that the Wilson’s will win their appeal in their civil case? Could Congress compel Libby’s testimony? Marcy Wheeler (aka emptywheel) blogged these questions some time ago as examples of things the American people have every right to know: “Did Bush ask Libby to take the lead in responding to Wilson’s allegations on June 9, 2003? Did Bush unilaterally declassify Valerie Plame’s covert identity and the CIA report on Wilson’s trip? Did Cheney ask Bush to do this? When and where did Libby tell Cheney that he was going to testify to the FBI that he had forgotten Plame’s identity until he learned it anew from Tim Russert? Have Cheney and Libby ever discussed ensuring that Libby would avoid all jail time?”
It’s always a great to see you on COUNTDOWN.
Elaine! John Dean! Welcome!
Thank you for joining us again, Mr. Dean. And thank you so much for this third in your unintended trilogy; I fervently hope there will not be a need for an unintended fourth in this series.
Welcome
Welcome Mr. Dean.
You have written about the “impeachment” of former Bush administration officials for their “alleged” crimes due to the harm done and so that they are unable to roll back into any future administrations.
Would Ari Fleisher, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser be candidates for impeachment?
Who do you think most highly qualifies for impeachment?
Welcome, John and Elaine. And happy birthday, John. Thanks so much for being here and sharing it with us.
Welcome
I have a feeling FDL will be seeing record high traffic. The server seems to be struggling already.
Happy Birthday, John, may you have many more. Thank you for all you do.
Welcome John and Happy Birthday.
You feel like an old friend here.
Mr. Dean, Have any of the Democratic candidates talked to you about fixing our broken government?
Welcome everyone, to the Salon and welcome and a very special welcome and …. happy birthday… to our special guest and author, John Dean. John needs no introduction to most of you, I am sure. Former counsel to the president and now author and Findlaw columnist, he has just published his third book about the Bush Administration.
John, this administration has provided you with plenty to write about. Tell us how you came to write Broken Government.
Hippo Birdies Mr Dean and welcome to FDl! Thanks for coming by on your day and talking to us.
Did you ever think there would be an administration that made the Nixon admin look like it was filled with Constitutional scholars?
Where do you think the genesis of what we are dealing with is? IMNSHO, a lot of it traces back to the Ford pardon of Nixon. That action allowed a few occurrences that we are paying for today:
1) The pardon set the precedent that crimes could been gotten away with
2) The pardon allowed the noise machine to pretend that Nixon had done nothing wrong, it was all politics as usual, and everybody does it.
3) The pardon was used preemptively to avoid punishment for crimes with Iran/Contra and today and many of the same players have been involved in all of the above.
Thank you again for your time today.
Hello and Welcome! Currently the Supremes are composed of seven Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees. How many of those currently serving might need replacing in the next five years?
We are waiting for John to join us. Did anyone of you have browser problems?
I had some problems getting onto the page, but it seems to be better now.
Sorry about the multiple same comments….having browser problems
Mr. Dean I had the pleasure of meeting you in Phoenix at the ACLU panel discussion soon after your last visit to the lake…. Thank you for joining us here today.
welcome john dean and wishing a joyous birthday! just finished listening to your recent speech…..most enlightening tho not really surprising..now to read and be further enlightened :o) for sure
Elaine Cassel @ 16
John will be here in a bit, having browser problems too. Firefox appears to work but IE is buggy.
Our tech people are working on it.
Some of you have already posted good questions and comments. I am sure John will have much to say. Speaking of the Supreme Court, John’s new book focuses on the broken processes of govt. It seems like we got to where we are today with a process problem–the Supreme Court stopping the recount. I hope John will comment on this.
Welcome, Mr. Dean. It seems everything the Republics have done to change the process of lawmaking is unAmerican. They don’t care what the Founding Fathers established and the principles behind it.
How can we make it clear to DC and the media that this is the biggest problem we face, and that we intend to restore the balance and transparency?
And happy birthday!
Did seem that there were problems getting on better now
Happy Birthday Mr. Dean. You and Olbermann have been doing a great job explaining the legal issues, with his questions and your comprehensible and comprehensive answers. I look forward to reading your book.
John will be here in a bit, having browser problems too. Firefox appears to work but IE is buggy.
Our tech people are working on it.
I had to go to Firefox. Could not get in on Internet Explorer. Did anyone else have this problem?
Mr. Dean, welcome back to the lake.
I’m in the last throes, if you will, of your book – and thanks for the voluminous notes – and you have provided me with a answers to a couple of significant issues I’ve wondered about over the years.
First is the way in which their (in my non-lawyerly view)wacky interpretations become law: Law Reviews. I had NO IDEA there was no peer review. It makes sense now, the self-referential circular arguments, but it never did before. But now some of the wackier ideas are worming their way deep into precedent.
Can we stop the worms? How?
TexasEllen @ 15
As a follow on to Ellen, I’ve read that it is legal to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices and that it has been done in the past to correct imbalance. Would you support this?
Happy Birthday Mr. Dean. You and Olbermann have been doing a great job explaining the legal issues, with his questions and your comprehensible and comprehensive answers. I look forward to reading your book.
Order it right away from Amazon!
Welcome John and congratulations on your new book.
Last time you were here you said Congress “has lost its institutional pride.” Do you see any changes for the better since then?
Thank you.
Mr. Dean thanks for coming back, and thank you for sharing your views and expertise on our constitution and the state of our country.
This week ACLU spokeswoman Liz Rose heard from Senate sources that an unreleased draft of a bill contains provisions granting “retroactive immunity” to telecommunications companies that turned over communications of subscribers to the NSA without warrants between 2001 and 2007.
FDL’s Christy Hardin Smith published a version of Rose’s email.
…”the Senate bill (Committee draft) does contain immunity/amnesty for the telecom companies…Including retroactive immunity for anything they’ve done wrong in cooperating in illegal domestic spying for the past six years.”
What do you think about the possibility of “retroactive immunity” for these companies?
We have yet to witness Senator Rockerfeller (now that Republican Senator Pat Roberts is out of the way) hold anyone accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. I don’t believe that Phase II of the Senate Selection Committee on Intelligence was ever completed?
Americans and others around the world are hungry to witness the US congress hold people and companies ACCOUNTABLE for their “alleged” crimes.
Why would Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Senator Jay Rockerfeller and other congress members roll over to these companies?
Great questions on the Supreme Court. Certainly, that is on the minds of many of us.
Hello, FDL.
I was unable to get in with my Explorer but made it with Firefox.
First, I want to thank Jane, and the FDL community, for inviting me back. Also to thank Elaine Castle as well, who I only know by her fine columns at FindLaw, as well as her always perceptive book reviews:-) Again a note of caution: while I am a very fast self-taught touch typist no one in the world will every hire me for that job because my speed far exceeds my accuracy — way too many typos when the smoke clears from my screen. So I apologize for typos at the outset but I will try to slow down and be careful.
An appropriate place for me to begin may be to report that when writing an afterword to Conservatives Without Conscience, for the paperback edition, the first thing that came to mind was my visit to the FDL Book Salon, so I opened that closing section of the paperback edition with the following comments, which I have placed in italics:
The reactions to this book far exceeded my hopes, and the response has been absolutely thrilling. Traditionally, an author never really knew for certain if his message was conveyed clearly. Most of my own personal interaction with readers came when doing signings or giving lectures, which typically occurred too soon after publication for any¬one to have had an opportunity to read the book. But that is chang¬ing with the Internet. For example, Jane Hampsher at Firedoglake .com invited me to her FDL Book Salon on Sunday, September 3, 2006, several months after Conservatives Without Conscience’s publica¬tion.* (*See FDL Book Salon at Conservatives Without Conscience, FDL Book Salon) It was a fascinating session. Jane had suggested I spend about an hour responding to questions posted by her readers, but when lit¬erally hundreds of thoughtful comments and interesting questions poured in, I found myself sitting at my keyboard for five hours.
My first clue that this would be an interesting experience came the preceding week, when the host for my FDL Salon appearance, Glenn Greenwald, posted his introduction of Conservatives Without Con¬science. Glenn is an attorney, author, and Salon’s political blogger, and his piece was one of the first reader responses I read. He nailed the point of the book perfectly, stating many of its points better than I had. In my own reading of books I prefer that the author not treat me as a simpleton and over-explain things, for I grow bored quickly; I fig¬ure readers of my books probably feel the same. Among the most dif¬ficult decisions I find myself making as a writer are how much to explain and how much to assume the readers already know. Having a good editor–which I do–who is not as steeped in the subjects I write about as am I helps greatly. There were a number of points in Conservatives Without Conscience where I had tried not to over-elaborate, and I was delighted that Glenn (and, as I learned from later mail, others) understood my aims perfectly. His points are thoughts I hope all readers might draw from the book, so I find them worth quoting: “The most significant contribution Dean makes to understanding the political forces which have dominated our country for the last five years is that he emphasizes and illuminates the psychological impulses underlying the Bush movement. Dean documents that the ‘conserva¬tive’ movement is composed of various factions who actually share very little in common in the way of political beliefs and could not come close to agreeing on a core set of political principles and ideals which define their movement. In the absence of a set of core, shared beliefs, what, then, binds them and maintains their allegiance to this political movement?” He continued [and the following is the quote from Glenn]:
The answer Dean provides is the shared hatred of common ene¬mies. And their collective attacks on those enemies have become the conservative movement’s defining attribute. And that is suf¬ficient to maintain allegiance because, argues Dean, what Bush followers crave more than anything else is submission to a pow¬erful authority as a means of alleviating their fears of ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity. Ultimately, as Dean convincingly demonstrates, the characteris¬tic which defines the Bush movement, the glue which binds it to¬gether and enables and fuels all of the abuses, is the vicious, limitless methods used to attack and demonize the “Enemy,” which encompasses anyone–foreign or domestic—threatening to their movement. What defines and motivates this movement are not any political ideas or strategic objectives, but instead, it is the bloodthirsty, ritualistic attacks on the Enemy du jour—the Terrorist, the Communist, the Illegal Immigrant, the Secularist, and most of all, the “Liberal.”
[This is from pages 185 – 187 of Conservatives Without Conscience (CWC).]
Jane tells me that Glenn is finishing up the manuscript of his next book, which is always a demanding time for every author, so he was unable to lead another session. But we can all look forward to his next book. I read Glenn’s blog – not to mention his books – because they are well-informed, tightly reasoned, and nicely written. I had the pleasure of a brief visit with Glenn at YearlyKos in Chicago, where I also had a chance to visit with many from the FDL community, as Christy Hardin Smith reported.
Unlike my last visit with CWC, when the book had been out for many months and many FDL visitors had read it, Broken Government (BG) has only been out a few weeks, and is just starting to be discovered by readers. So I understand that many of you will not be familiar with the subject matter of the book, and I will proceed accordingly. Frankly, when my publisher – Viking – wanted to release this book at this time, rather than my original proposal for a Spring/Summer 2008 release, I thought it was too early. But I have come to change my mind. Worse Than Watergate (WTW) was published during the 2004 election year and CWC during the 2006 election year, I had envisioned a similar date for BG to come out during the 2008 election year. If I thought like Anne Coulter – but then I doubt many are capable of such thinking – I might have titled this book “If Republicans Had Brains They Would Not Have To Cheat To Win.” This is not to say that I have pulled any punches in explaining what Republicans are doing, but I do not much like the sensational, so it takes a bit longer for me to reach readers with hard facts. Thus, it is probably better this book came out well before the next election.
This book, however, is written with the 2008 election very much in mind. More specifically, I found it stunning that the Democrats gave Republicans a pass in 2004 and 2006 on their abuses of the democratic processes of government. On their cheating. Nonetheless, Democrats are allowing Republicans to game the system, and if Democrats don’t put this matter on the agenda in 2008 we are all in a heap of trouble. For this reason I plan to give every Democratic nominee a copy of the book. But only if the book is read widely will they too read it.
I am not a “Chicken Little, the sky falling” type, nor do I believe in alarmism. Yet I do write about problems I believe are serious and call for public attention. Never, when I returned to writing to honor a promise I had made to myself years earlier, did I think I would be writing political commentary, rather I thought I would be doing biography and history. But when others simply were ignoring situations that were so clear to me, I began cranking it out. WTW was about the excessive secrecy of the Bush/Cheney Administration and what it was hiding – at the time I wrote that book this secrecy was being ignored by the mainstream media. This, in turn, provoked me to pick up a project I had started earlier with the late Senator Barry Goldwater to understand what had become of the conservative movement and why. The answer, as set forth in CWC, was that authoritarian conservatives have captured the GOP – a fact that no conservative has refuted nor even challenged because the evidence is overwhelming. BG looks at what these authoritarians have done to the federal government – simply stated they have broken it when they have been in control. And they are doing so by manipulating the machinery and mechanics of government and politics.
I noticed this morning on my way to the salon a question from Dru who is unable to attend. The question is based on my last visit: “With regard to your description of J. Edgar Hoover; you say that Hoover ‘rigged the Warren Commission investigation in a manner that still colors the nation’s understanding of President Kennedy’s assassination.’ Would you explain what the persistent misperception continues to be?”
ANSWER: During my years in government I had more than one FBI insider tell me that Hoover greatly restricted the Kennedy assassination investigation rather than push for the full bore inquiry that would have run down every lead and answered all relevant questions. I was told that Hoover’s actions were believed due to his dislike of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. It was not that Hoover was part of a conspiracy rather that his indifference to a more complete investigation had given rise to many of the conspiracy theories that have emerged. Hoover, it seems, did not care who killed Kennedy, which at the time was not a federal crime. I don’t believe I used the word “misperception” rather I think American do understand that Hoover botched the investigation, and in varying degrees, many Americans understand that we do not have a full picture of what occurred. I am not into conspiracy theories but clearly we do not have all the fact that a timely and complete investigation would have produced.
With that, let me depart from botched government to Broken Government and your comments, questions and thoughts.
I just finished reading the book and the one place that jumped out at me was in the Second Branch when you cited Ted Kennedy and Steven Calabrisi and the independent agencies that ought not come under executive control. The quote specifically mentioned the FEC which, at this time is awaiting the confirmation of 4 commissioners including one known for election tampering and blocking the rights of people to vote.
Have you views about what is going on with the process ie, McConnel’s push to have them all voted in a block, and the consequences of either that or not having 4 new commissioners at all? I fear that this administration is not likely to want to hand over power and will try everything to rig the next election as they have the previous two.
Thanks for your patience everyone.
We are waiting to John to come in…I hear he has the same browser problems I had.
I hope the five who inflicted this nation to the tender mercies of Bush/Cheney and the neocons, by halting the vote counting, wake up in a cold sweat (at least three times a week) wondering if God could possibly forgive them.
Welcome back, John Dean!
It says uptop that you claim,
I worry whether or not the Democrats can be trusted to do this. The current Democratic Congress really doesn’t seem all that excited about defending the Constitution. In fact, they seem *less* energized about this than Democrats during the Watergate era. At that time, it seemed like a groundswell of Constitutionalism rose up to such an extent that I thought it might be the national religion. Today, it seems, not so much.
Democrats seem more interested in building a veto-proof majority than defending the Constitution. Am I being myopic about this?
As part of the same question, I am also wondering about what you think of recent claims that we’re sliding towards Fascism?
Thanks for the work you’re doing on these questions!
Bob in HI
Welcome, John is here and will begin answering questions.
Welcome Sir!
Elaine Cassel @ 16
had big problems on Safari and switched to Firefox which is working just fine.
Elaine Cassel @ 16
I’m always in Firefox; however I get double posts in FF, so I have an IE something (adapter/fixer 0 thing) so I can stay in FF.
And no, I’m not technical.
Welcome Mr. Dean. Happy Birthday as well.
Elaine, I’ve enjoyed your writing for a few years now catching you at ‘Civil Liberties Watch.’
Welcome to FDL, John.
Just as Watergate was an intersection of corruption and incompetence, our current “War on Terror” appears the same.
Here’s a report on military contractors in Afghanistan.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar…..actors.htm
On one hand the American taxpayer is paying DynCorp to eraciate opium poppies, while at the same time paying USPI to smuggle heroin.
Do you think that electing Mark Penn of Burson-Marsteller (Hillary Clinton) would allow ANY favorable change in systemic problem, even though “the Democrats” would be in power?
Wordsmith @ 40
Thank you for the compliment. I am fortunate that often my guest columns appear on the days that John’s regular columns appear.
Mr Dean,
Thank-you for being such a patriot that you want to share your wisdoms with Americans. I am honored to be here to ask you this burning question I have had for awhile.
I am concerned about how we can get Democrats to play by the rules. It seems like they have already been doing that and are “trumped” by people who make up new rules as they go along and then yell, “sorry, you lost!” Or when someone plays by the “new” rules, people feign outrage and they are, “Shocked, shocked I tell you!” Impeachment seems to be the only way to get the message across that We The People do not approve of these tactics, but the Dems don’t even want to play by THAT rule they say it is “off the table.” I am discouraged and frustrated that Dems won’t even enforce the rules already there.
What can we do about this and will there be “retroactive” things that can be done after this administration gets out of office, or is during their term time the only chance we have to make them accountable?
Cat In Seattle
Good question, Cat in Seattle. I look forward to hearing how John can further assure us that the Dems will, indeed, make a difference.
QUESTIONS: In light of Bush’s use of his authority to commute Libby’s sentence, is Libby’s only excuse for not testifying the possibility that the Wilson’s will win their appeal in their civil case? Could Congress compel Libby’s testimony? Marcy Wheeler (aka emptywheel) blogged these questions some time ago as examples of things the American people have every right to know: “Did Bush ask Libby to take the lead in responding to Wilson’s allegations on June 9, 2003? Did Bush unilaterally declassify Valerie Plame’s covert identity and the CIA report on Wilson’s trip? Did Cheney ask Bush to do this? When and where did Libby tell Cheney that he was going to testify to the FBI that he had forgotten Plame’s identity until he learned it anew from Tim Russert? Have Cheney and Libby ever discussed ensuring that Libby would avoid all jail time?”
ANSWERS: I do not believe Libby has any excuse for not testifying, although Bush will claim executive privilege if not the state secrets privilege. I agree with Marcy that the outstanding questions should be answer. As I see Congress could force this issue and hold him in contempt if he failed to answer.
No. 3 – COMMENT: “I fervently hope there will not be a need for an unintended fourth in this series.”
REPLY: I too so hope. I would love to leave this genre and move on to biography and history.
Jane Hamsher @ 20
Internet Explorer is always buggy because it is the worst browser ever, just as Petraeus is the worst General ever. Even though I could not afford it, I just got a new iMac. Very sweet.
Welcome back to FDL, John. Thank you for the glass of iced tea and the lovely chat at YKos in Chicago — and for the continued scholarship on these issues and especially questions surrounding the rule of law.
Thanks so much for asking so many of the questions that need broader discussion. Thanks, too, to Elaine for the great intro today.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Dean. Do you think that perhaps impeachment is off the table so that criminals in the administration cannot be pardoned by Bush? Do you think that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will ever be tried for war crimes?
1. Firefox is clearly superior to IE.
2. It is such a privilege to observe this in real time. Mr. Dean, you have been a hero to me since I was a young boy and just wanted you to know how great it is to take part in a discussion with one of the truest patriots our country has had in modern times. Thank you.
No. 5 – QUESTIONS: “Would Ari Fleisher, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser be candidates for impeachment?
Who do you think most highly qualifies for impeachment?”
ANSWER: Any presidential appointee is subject to impeachment. I would put David Addington at the top of my list, because a simple majority vote after impeachment can bar that person from holding federal office. The thought of Addington coming back in an even high post is chilling.
Good question, Loo, about impeachment. But I wonder if the Dems have thought that far ahead or if they just don’t have the passion for the task? I would love to hear John’s comment on this.
John, can you address the issue of why the Dems aren’t pursuing impeachment? And would add Alberto Gonzales to the list?
J. Dean @ 45
I’m extremely concerned that even though Congress has the tool of inherent contempt in their kit, they are continually coming to the brink of using it and then backing off.
Sadly my alarm is more motivated by the dems not doing their job than by the repubs. antics. Do you know of any reasons why they are holding back and not following through on enforcing the subpoenaes that they have previously issued?
What part have Presidential “signing statements” played in our Broken Government?
No. 12 – QUESTION: “Have any of the Democratic candidates talked to you about fixing our broken government?”
ANSWER: Not really. That is the reason I plan to keep pounding the drum as long as necessary. While this is not the only issue it is too big an issue for the Democrats to again ignore.
Elaine Cassel @ 16
Elaine — thanks for hosting; excellent intro. In the third to last paragraph, is there a missing word in the second sentence. Let us know and we’ll fix.
Kathleen @ 55
Kathleen, in case John does not get to answer this, he has a huge section on this in the book.
imo the dems dont seem to be able to wrest control of congress from repug hands tho they “control” both houses….any opinions on why this is so mr dean?
Scarecrow @ 57
Thanks for noticing. I think it should simply read that “there are rules.”
Glad to see you back on the front page at FDL, Mr. Dean, though from your comments above it sounds as if you stop by here rather often at other times, too.
After examining the brokenness of government in each of the three branches, in which branch do you see the best chance for beginning the repair process? Judicial opinions that overturn the most egregious executive grasps from power? A return to meaningful legislative oversight? An uprising of dedicated (mainly career) executive branch employees against the overly politically-minded senior administration officials?
Most of all, do you see any chance of any of this happening before January 2009?
Question: With regard to the Bush Library, what do you think of Executive Order 13233, which “provides former Presidents with virtually unlimited powers to deny or grant access to documents generated under their administrations.”
Cliff Varnell @ 41
Yikes…please allow me to re-phrase the question.
Burson-Marsteller has a singularly foul record shilling for all manner of despotic people and policies; B-M’s CEO Mark Penn is widely regarded as Hillary’s “Rove.”
Why should we think a President Hillary Clinton is going to change the “culture of corruption,”
or any of the corporate Dems in power?
John — two questions which have come up repeatedly in the past couple of weeks are about the new AG nominee — Mukasey — and about the potential for retroactive immunity being handed over to telecomm companies for their involvement with the Bush Administration in the NSA’s domestic spying in violation of FISA maneuvers. I’d love your take on either or both issues — especially in the context of the Cheney work toward an unaccountable, unilateral executive and the need for restoration of checks, balances and the “advice and consent” issues in the Senate in particular.
No. 13 – QUESTION: “John, this administration has provided you with plenty to write about. Tell us how you came to write Broken Government.”
ANSWER: Hi Elaine. Let me thank you again for hosting and the nice work you do over at FindLaw. Very simply I wrote this book because the Democrats are letting the Republicans game the system. I have not set forth everything they have broken, rather the fundamental distortions of the democratic system that Democrats are tolerating, when they should be fighting them. It is not a prescriptive book rather a serious heads up to everyone who has been ignoring what is going on.
juslin @ 59
I hope John can answer this, but one factor is the use of the filibuster, which John mentions in the book. The “super majority” requirement means 60 votes needed if the other side filibusters. So unless the Dems get 60 votes in the Senate, I fear we may be in the same boat we are today. Am I right about that, John?
Elaine Cassel @ 53
And as you mentioned in the book there are clear cases of Justices lying in their confirmation hearings—Thomas, Renquist to name two. Is lying under oath in these circumstances an impeachable offense and is there any possibility that a justice—Thomas—could be impeached for having done so?
Thank you, John.
Your focus on democratic “processes” in this book was a brilliant idea.
TexasEllen @ 35
Maybe they (SCOTUS members who took away the count) can be impeached …
I am not one to wildly use this “weapon” without a great deal of thought, and I especially do not want someone to be used as a scapegoat while the rest do not face the consequences they caused. Still it is time SOMEONE get the message that the time for making up rules that do not apply to the Constitution is over. Now!
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
Just an appreciation. In Findlaw, Dean has been writing about the Bush Administration’s encroachments since about 2002, and he’s been a wonderful resource. My list of honest conservatives is very short, but Dean is on it.
It is obvious that many of us still feel a great deal of pain about what the Supreme Court did in 2000. John addresses the confirmation process in great detail in this new book.
No. 14 – QUESTIONS: Did you ever think there would be an administration that made the Nixon admin look like it was filled with Constitutional scholars? Where do you think the genesis of what we are dealing with is?
ANSWERS: I thought we had written the book on what not to do:-) Never did I dream that the GOP would take it as an opening chapter for their governing philosophy. The genesis of all this is very clear to me: authoritarian conservatism, which I addressed in CWC.
You all really must read “Conservatives Without Conscience.” It is an excellent primer on authoritarianism generally, and its role in Republican politics today.
I don’t have much to add here, but I do want to thank you, John, for writing this and for joining us here, again, today. I can’t wait to sink my teeth into the book.
Thanks also to Elaine and the whole Findlaw crew.
Folks, if you’re not familiar with Findlaw, please click on the ad on the upper right.
Mr Dean,
Thank you for reaching out in this way. My question is a simple one. What, in your estimation, are the Democrats in Congress afraid of?
Mr. Dean, how on earth was it possible for Paula Jones to sue Bill Clinton as a sitting President? I thought one couldn’t, under any circumstances, let alone a (IMO) minor civil matter that occurred before his election.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 63
I believe you’ve suggested extending the statute of limitations, John, which I wholeheartedly support.
Elaine Cassel @ 73
Many many of us did read it and heartily participated in the Book Salon that John Mentions in 32 above. It was/is an important book in laying out who we are dealing with.
Mr Dean,
Thank you for your insightful books, and your time here today.
With the latest revelations from the trial of the QWEST CEO that Bush/Cheney initiated some kind of secret spying program within weeks of his selection by the Supreme Court, do you think this will change the calculus about impeachment or at least really pressing the Administration for information, including the use of inherent contempt?
Going further into the NSA spying crimes, would you put it past Bush and Cheney to use any of their illegally-gathered info as some sort of blackmail against Democrats who could expose them? It sure seems that the Dems aren’t eager to expose details of NSA spying activity — could it be that they are protecting some dirty secrets of their own?
Thank you again.
John Dean “This book, however, is written with the 2008 election very much in mind. More specifically, I found it stunning that the Democrats gave Republicans a pass in 2004 and 2006 on their abuses of the democratic processes of government. On their cheating. Nonetheless, Democrats are allowing Republicans to game the system, and if Democrats don’t put this matter on the agenda in 2008 we are all in a heap of trouble.”
What do the Democrats have to gain by allowing the Republicans to “game the system”?
Why are they allowing this to continue?
No. 15 – QUESTION: Hello and Welcome! Currently the Supremes are composed of seven Republican appointees and two Democratic appointees. How many of those currently serving might need replacing in the next five years?
ANSWER: This is the big unspoken issue (so far) for 2008. As I write in chapter 3 of BG, the court is at the tipping point. There are three potential seats that could come up for the next president: Justices Stevens (age), Ginsburg (health) and Souter (disgust with the wingers).
I was wondering, in addition, if there were an example of political prosecution/persecution by the DOJ.
I hope John gets to give us his thoughts on this.
J. Dean @ 81
Might Justice Souter reconsider if the appointment is made by a dem president of someone not of the “fundamentalist” bent as you described the block of 4?
The link at 32 is broken.
Here’s the unbroken one. Conservatives Without Conscience, FDL Book Salon
No. 22 – QUESTION: How can we make it clear to DC and the media that this is the biggest problem we face, and that we intend to restore the balance and transparency?
ANSWER: By doing exactly what we are doing today, talking about it openly and hammer the point with candidates running for high office.
Thank you, Wordsmith. An awesome book. I grew up in a “fundamentalist Christian” home and I know authoritarianism!
John Dean,
I’ve ordered your newest book for all our local libraries. I found your Commonwealth Club of California speech to be very compelling.
Back in September, 2005, you wrote a column for Findlaw about using open-source research on the web for investigative journalism. Have you pursued the idea further since then?
Using “Camino” as a browser, as this thread still isn’t showing up on Safari…
No. 26 – QUESTION: I had NO IDEA there was no peer review. It makes sense now, the self-referential circular arguments, but it never did before. But now some of the wackier ideas are worming their way deep into precedent. Can we stop the worms? How?
ANSWER: I think if this subject came up from time to time at confirmation hearings, particularly when a lower court judge has cited such bogus scholarship, and is being nominated for a higher court. It strikes me if a nominee was shot down for such activity it would send a message. It would also bring into public focus the process I explain in the book, to which you refer.
Elaine Cassel @ 85
You’re very welcome. Yes – so did I, then converted to Catholicism, and now…..
I don’t always buy books. I started CWC and knew I had to buy it to mark it up. Knowing that, I’ll be purchasing ‘Broken Gov’t.’
Ed*ard Teller @ 87
ET, that link goes to a Commonwealth Club audio file.
Here’s a link to the FindLaw column.
No. 29 – QUESTION: Last time you were here you said Congress “has lost its institutional pride.” Do you see any changes for the better since then?
ANSWER: Yes, it is much improved under the Dems. Indeed, in my chapter on the legislative branch I explain how it is being repaired. The reason the public is again holding the Congress in lower and lower esteem is due in large part to the GOP effective use of obstructionism. It is, as I explain, how they won Congress in 1994. It appears they are again relying on this tactic.
Elaine Cassel @ 85
My neighbor, now Wiccan, too! She’s been a fountain of psychological insight, but nothing can top CWC, in my estimation.
Peterr @ 89
Nice work Peterr!
Elaine Cassel @ 65
However, the filibuster itself is avoided through something called Unaninous Consent in which the senators agree to skip the filibuster and go straight to the 60 votes. This effectively changes the required votes from 50 to 60! What I don’t understand is why the Democrats don’t force more filibusters (like they did once at the start of the summer) to force the Republicans to be more open in their opposition. Sure, filibustering’s a drag, but being in Congress isn’t *supposed* to be all chocolate mints on your pillow either…
(And thank you, John Dean for being here today: it’s simply marvelous to read through your comments with the perspective and knowledge you bring to them…)
Welcome, John Dean. I very much appreciate the unique role you are playing, and the wisdom you bring to this discussion of the “shadow” side of government, which I do not believe would have been possible without your years in the Nixon administration.
I wonder if you have any comments about the recent revelation that the Bush Administration has apparently been data mining US citizens phone records as early as February, 2001, rather than as a result of 911, as the Administration claims. Any thoughts about what the Administration’s objective was, if true?
when you were involved with the republican party, were you aware of their deep nazi ties? ibm, prescott bush sanctions, attempted military coup vis-a-vis gen smedley butler. if not, are you aware now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/…..40,00.html
peanutbutter @ 93
I wonder if has anything to do with Pelosi’s attitude. I’m trying to remember where I saw this, over the past week, where Pelosi was complaining about the protesters outside her house and how she didn’t appreciate it, and apparently we don’t appreciate them. Personally, I think they are just as disconnected from the people at times as are the ReThugs.
No. 30 – QUESTION: What do you think about the possibility of “retroactive immunity” for these companies?
ANSWER: Sen. Rockefeller is not the flip-side of the Pat Roberts coin, and at times seems intimidated by his GOP colleagues. Retroactive immunity when it is not even known what these companies did nor why is absurd.
thanks, Peterr… Safari now working.
Mr Dean, thank you for your work and for being here today.
To follow up on what Elaine and The Gris have reaised, can you comment on how the Rovian Federal prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Siegleman may (or may not) affect the Beltway Village’s tolerance of the Rethugs’ criminality?
To be blunt – as the Village appears to care neither for us nor our Constitution, would a pol’s fate get their attention?
IE working now. Welcome Mr. Dean! I love what you’ve been doing for the last couple of decades and I buy your books regularly for myself and my friends. (And thanks, Donna, for helping me keep my sanity while I couldn’t get into the session.)
IE seems to be working here now, but keeping Firefox open just in case.
Thank you for being here, Mr Dean!
AlexandriaCynic @ 99
Sure thing! Back to lurking…
I listened to the audio version of Broken Government available at audible.com.
Thanks, John, for making the book available in this format — it’s wonderful and the best part of my daily work commute.
No. 33 – QUESTION: I just finished reading the book and the one place that jumped out at me was in the Second Branch when you cited Ted Kennedy and Steven Calabrisi and the independent agencies that ought not come under executive control. The quote specifically mentioned the FEC which, at this time is awaiting the confirmation of 4 commissioners including one known for election tampering and blocking the rights of people to vote. Have you views about what is going on with the process ie, McConnel’s push to have them all voted in a block, and the consequences of either that or not having 4 new commissioners at all?
ANSWER: I mention the FEC in connection with the “unitary executive theory.” McConnel’s effort is an attempt to further dismantle a law he dislikes. Hopefully the people of KY will not send him back to do more damage to the election laws.
In addition to sending copies of Mr. Dean’s books to congressional Democrats and Democratic candidates, I believe we should also get copies to be forced down the throats of the MSM
I had a browser problem but I got in through googling FDL Book Salon and John Dean.
This was soooooooooo worth the wait.
It seems we are hinging our hopes on the Democratic Party restoring government.
Shouldn’t the masses dictate the change and isn’t it really the medias fault for not exposing the conservative bent towards authoritarianism?
Is this working?
oddball, it’s veerryy sllooww but working
oddball @ 108
Yes, if you mean the salon!
John is flooded with questions and is typing as fast as he can!
oddball @ 106
Agreed, the media needs to be held to account. I think that would be through full hearings and investigations, post-Bush regime, to really look at “how we got here”. I would love to see the emails and call transcripts between Cheney’s office and the heads of the corporations like GE/NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.
If we can keep the Republicans out of the executive branch and start making repairs, information technology (social media technologies) will continue to empower citizens and activists and we will indeed take our “government” back. But we need to stop the lawlessness in its tracks, and hold the criminals to account. That, to me, is the first step.
Mr. Dean: a foundational premise of the Constitution is that it doesn’t totally rely on good people always coming to government but rather on a system of checks/balances that kick in even when the government officials in one or more branches are less than dedicated to the public interest. We can get out of balance, but the natural forces bring us back.
But in the last five years, that presumption proved to be inadequate (or maybe this is just too short-term a view?), which suggests a larger flaw in the overall scheme. Are we really in a position in which our hope is that government will once again become populated by “constitutionalists”? E.g., the Constitution will work if (but only if) we just elect “more and better” Democrats? If so, that’s not how we were taught it was supposed to work.
Mr Dean,
Who is advising the democratic leadership on matters related to impeachment and other legal maneuvers available to them? Are scholars waiting for the call are have they approached leadership on their own?
Why was impeachment taken off the table?
sacrablue @ 105
I just got the idea to donate a copy to our town library.
John,
When you were here in Sept 06 you stated you expected John Conyers to start impeachment hearings if the dems won the majority. What do you make of the lack of action on the lawlessness of the administration, and well as the capitulation on FISA, PAA, habeas, enforcement of subpoenas. Don’t people understand that the Constitution has been severely attacked and undermined and all else flows from that. The administration is NOT incompetent; they are meeting all THEIR goals.
thanks for being here
Elaine Cassel @ 24
Heh. Those without Firefox have been stuck downstairs until just a few minutes ago. Sorry we’re late.
Great comment, Scarecrow. A government doing the good of the people is what is broken, as John points out. Will a different government make a difference? I think John thinks so.
Audrey @ 117
Welcome, Audrey, and all other patient participants.
hi commenters -
just an observation from the “other side”….in yesterday’s farm bill post, there were lots of looooong gaps between my replies to commenters’ questions
– takes a while for the front pager to read comments, type, and post the repsonses…
I want to amend my statement above by pointing out that I would want the public to get this information through subpoenas and testimony. Legally. Not by using the illegal powers seized by Cheney and Bush.
I have a funny feeling that a lot more arm-twisting, bullying and straight-out-extortion has been going on behind the scenes. Look what they did to QWEST. This sort of pressure may have been applied to all the broadcasters and contractors.
The corruption of the media needs to be addressed, but at least we the Internets!
Please pardon me if this was asked and answered, but I’d really like to know what Mr. Dean thinks we could DO that would keep the current governmental tragedy from ever recurring. It isn’t just the top 10 or 20 or even 50 Republican miscreants, but hundreds of lower (but still significant) level employees who now permeate the government. We can’t do a litmus test that will allow us to fire people whose only qualification for employment was Republican loyalty and opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Are we just screwed until they get so old they have to retire?
No. 36 – QUESITONS: Democrats seem more interested in building a veto-proof majority than defending the Constitution. Am I being myopic about this? As part of the same question, I am also wondering about what you think of recent claims that we’re sliding towards Fascism?
ANSWER: Principles versus practical politics can be a difficult call. Democrats today are dealing with hardball “we will call you all traitors” opponents who know how to win elections. They know the issues they can lose with voters believe the answer to terrorism is tough talk and limiting our liberties. Clearly, at some point Dems will have to take a stand on protecting constitutional rights, but there is no simple formula. I think they do need some room to build a large bloc in Congress, so on some issues I cut them slack. (Not on basic matters like their refusal to tell voters how the GOP is gaming the entire system however.) As for fascism, as I explained in CWC, we have a long way to go but not if we ignore what the GOP is doing to the system.)
AlexandriaCynic @ 122
Good point, AlexandriaCynic, and one I was talking about yesterday, with a writer. How many hundreds of people did the DOJ hire as career appointees? Not to mention other agencies.
No. 32: Whoops, I caught my own typo when just now going back up the page for the next question.
I apologize to our host for my typo of her name which is Elaine Cassel, not Castle — as my fingers and brain got disconnected.
Since it appears that there was so much lawlessness on the part of this administration, an impeachment seems to so many people to be a no brainer and “probable cause” is almost prima facia. Is there some political calculus that prevents the congress from advancing an impeachment proceeding? We’re baffled because it seems to defy logic? Is a bad precedent being set to allow such wrong doing to go unaccounted for?
J. Dean @ 126
No problem, John! I don’t know how your brain or fingers are keeping up with this flood of wonderful questions.
J. Dean @ 32
I wouldn’t worry too much about the typos, as we’re kind of used to it here at FDL. For instance . . .
kirk murphy @ 119
Typed like a front pager, Kirk — though Looseheadprop is the clear standardbearer for those whose thoughts outrun their fingers.
(I’ll leave it to others to lay out my typing sins . . .)
Hello, Mr. Dean. I’m a big fan and have been fascinated by you since the Watergate Hearings ( when I was just a pre-teen; not to make you feel old). I would like to know that since it appears that the corporations are now switching their donations from the Republican party to the Democratic party for this upcoming election… how in the world are we going to be able to get corporatism out of our government and a repudiation of the laws that allow corporations to have the same “civil rights” as individuals?
And would you ever condsider running for the Senate or the House, (we could use a few statesmen in office)?
John, no one is worried about the typos!
We are here for your insight and knowledge and grateful that you are sharing this time with us.
AlexandriaCynic @ 121
In Nazi Germany there was what was called “working toward the Fuhrer” which meant that party loyalists and governmental civil servants did not need direct orders to carry out and promote Party principles and policies. This was even encouraged in the public at large. Mr. Dean, do you see a similar modus operandi of both high and low level Party functionaries, activists and supporters of the Republican Party where the interests of the Party supercede the intersts of the nation at large?
No. 42: QUESTION: What can we do about this and will there be “retroactive” things that can be done after this administration gets out of office, or is during their term time the only chance we have to make them accountable?
ANSWER: First re your comment. Do not be discourage or disappointed for then they win. They want you to go away. Yes, there will be “retroactive” active things — if the Dems win in 2008. This will be the first thing the new president does. But if these process issues are not in play in 2008, as I believe they must be, then not all the clean up works that needs to be undertake will be. The issues I raise in BG are not only winning issues for the campaign in 2008 but they are essential fixes that must be undertaken.
I distinctly remember, in the first few days after 9/11, a news report that Bush and the Admin had met with all major publishers and media owners but the report never mentioned the topic of discussion and I’ve not been able to find it using google.
I suspect it was along the lines of shut up and follow our lead or subsequent deaths will be on your heads, or something like that. Do you know? Were the telecoms already on board by then?
Elaine Cassel @ 131
Amen Elaine! Mr Dean ~ we are hanging on every word, typo or not and we do not care since most of us here have had “sausage fingers” at one time or the other and I am sure we are getting the gist of what you are saying. Hang in there!
Cat In Seattle
Seems to me we need a separation of media and state as well…the extent to which the media has neglected to inform the public, whether under direct government pressure (as intimated recently on Hardball) or a desire to cozy up and support the power structure, is simply borderline criminal, in my opinion…
peterr – 707!
No. 48 – QUESTIONS: Do you think that perhaps impeachment is off the table so that criminals in the administration cannot be pardoned by Bush? Do you think that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will ever be tried for war crimes?
ANSWERS: Impeachment is off the table because Speaker Pelosi understands how badly the GOP abused the process with Clinton. She knows it would take longer than two years to seriously pursue an impeachment of Bush or Cheney, because the House had no real ability to conduct such investigations. Both the Nixon and Clinton proceedings relied on the work of special prosecutors, who used the FBI and grand juries. It is not likely that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld will be tried for war crimes, but then I doubt they will travel to countries that might hold them responsible for their actions.
Welcome, Mr Dean, and thank you for your time today.
Do you think Congressional Democrats hope to preserve these extraordinary new executive powers for a Democratic president, anticipating the 2008 election?
Do you think a Democratic president, eager to proceed on new initiatives, may decide to let bygones be, just as Bush One transgressions were never investigated thoroughly by the first Clinton administration in 1993?
Mr. Dean, its so great you’re here to talk about your work and research. I listened on KQED to your speach the other day to the Commonwealth Club, and the implications of what you said there sent chills up my spine.
To echo Cat’s concerns, is there such a thing a Democratic Party authoritarian personality, analogous to the Republican type, and how concerned do we have to be that a Democratic president my seek to build on the systems of authoritarianism promulgated under Bush, instead of moving to dismantle or at least to mitigate them? I know you’ve said before that the ceoncept of centralized presidential power was, in fact, extended under Clinton, but I’m unclear whether you think this expansion is anywhere near as dangerous as what is happening under the present gaggle of kakistocrats.
Would you be willing to comment on the current slate of Democratic candidates, with respect to the concern we should have about them, in this one respect?
J. Dean @ 133
Oh thank -you for the words of encouragement and no I won’t go away. I have a progressive Representative, (Jay Enslee) but even he and our other progressive, Jim McDermott, have told their constituents when the question of impeachment comes up over and over, that they have so many other things to clean up, they are worried that impeachment will take up all their time. So perhaps now we will begin the work of convincing our reps that, if they say this is off the table because they have too many other pressing things to take care of, then they need to please understand that facing the consequences is *not* gone and We The People will not forget.
Cat In Seattle
State Secrets and secret violations of the Constitution and of law:
One thing that Congress does know is that the only Judge to have looked at the TSP on the merits and after a briefing on the “secret” aspects – Judge Diggs-Taylor – found that the program violated the Constitution. Not just the FISA law, but the Constitution. This appears to never be mentioned. How does immunity come up in a context where the only court of review has found the program to be unconstitutional?
The Sixth Cir did nothing to undermine that finding, but rather struck down the holding on “standing” grounds – that unconstitutional and illegal searches and seizures can proceed in the face of extreme citizen distress as long as the government refuses to acknowledge who it has searched, what it has seized, and what it is doing with those fruits.
In another setting, military officers who have participated in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals at GITMO have come forward (and court proceedings like the Kurnaz case have graphically demonstrated) and admitted that the hearings are shams and secrecy of proceedings is used more to cover up for incompetence and as a shield against liablity for consequences of actions taken against innocent persons – rather than to defend national security.
But on a different front, despite reported admissions by Sec. of State Rice to Merkel that the US did, indeed, kidnap and torture German national el-Masri, the Sup Ct has denied cert on his torture victims act case and allowed to stand the state secrets invocations by DOJ and intel services. This pretty much seems to set the stage for what may happen on the Arar case front as well, where former DAG Thompson signed off on paperwork sending Arar to Syrian torture and – despite a huge, widly reporterd and ongoing review in Canada of the case, then DAG Comey invoked state secrets.
No Congressional committee is taking a hard look at any of this and, while the Arar exoneration was coming out in Canadian press – Dems in Congress were insuring the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which makes the very CSRTs that were ALREADY the subject of a court order referring to their Kafkaesque nature, and another referring to their reams of exculpatory information that were unconvincingly stamped “classified” and which are now the subject of critical affidavits even from the military personnel sitting on those panels – makes those CSRT holdings on enemy combatant status “dispositive” and kills habeas review.
Commutations of and dropped charges on military violations of law against Iraqi citizens as the norm – or findings of guilt for murder and torture accompanied with sentences of 60 days or decreases in rank or formal reprimand only.
Political prosecutions of and raids on the law offices of contributors to John Edwards. Mayfield’s law practice equally under attack and illegal searchs. Whistleblowers like Vance sent into military detention overseas. Misrepresentations to the courts. “Story hour” more and more routinely allowed in the courtrooms, where, for example, the Padilla prosecutors were allowed to routinely invoke 9/11 despite the fact that Padilla was not linked to 9/11 in any fashion and where, for example, extremely questionable “journals” turned over by Chalabi’s crew in Iraq were used in the Oscar Wyatt prosecution, etc. etc.
DOJ orchestration of press confs, leaks and political prosecutions – together with coordinating efforts with DOD, CIA, NSA etc. to first have people tortured in black sites, all the while targeting prosecutors who push too hard on cases like Cunningham’s or who won’t pull a Biskupic on command.
Where is there any glimmer of light at the end of all this? I don’t see it in any promises to “restore” the DOJ (or CIA or NSA or DOD etc.) How can anything be “restored” when no one is brought to justice for their roles in Constitutional violations, torture, kidnap, etc.? And where is there even one still small voice out there demanding prosecutions and sentences?
Mr. Dean — again, thank you for making yourself available for Qs & As!
As I’ve read above, you think three Supreme Court Justices could be leaving the Court.
Would you consider an appointment to the SC? Would you be eligible to serve us there? (For one, I really think you’d be a wonderful addition!)
Thanks for your time and your insights!
TeddySanFran @ 139
This is a great question and one I have often thought about. It seems that could be the case unless the Dem president or even the next Republican president is one willing to serve within the confines of our Constitution, and serve we, the People.
so some of the greatest crimes of the century {and last} will not be investigated…wow
Elaine Cassel @ 129
You betcha
The media is owned and operated by corporate interests whose interests align with the economic philosophy of the republicans. Not only did this mean enormous tax breaks for their owners, but hands off on regulations and consolidation efforts which have been so successful.
It appears that big media and the telcoms were in on the “plan”, benefited from it and are now seeking cover from congress. They all seem part of “criminal” activity of enormous proportion and are sweating an accountability moment.
A serious discovery and trial might lead to the break up of these giants. They might get a bad sun burn for all the sunlight.
No. 53 – QUESTION: Do you know of any reasons why they are holding back and not following through on enforcing the subpoenaes that they have previously issued?
ANSWER: I have not seen any Democratic chairman fold yet, rather these issues are still on the table. In 99 of 100 cases these matters are resolved politically before they go to court, and Congress has let its own proceedings to try contempters grow rusty.
J. Dean @ 136
While I ruly wish impeachment to be undertaken, it also occurred to me when I read this, that the structural elements necessary for an impeachment have also been compromised. Which is to say the prosecutors and investigators (and even the funding of the same departments) have been gutted as well?
I could see all that, but I really wish she would take the time to explain it. As it is, combined with her other actions, it merely makes her look arrogant at best and part of the overall problem at worst.
My fear is if they escape investigation and punishment, won’t that make it more difficult to fix the government? Since the consequences appear to be next to nothing?
Thnak you Mr. Dean for your time and insight. I’m learning a lot today.
Great summary Mary. That’s only part of the reason Americans are freaking out by W and the dems doing nothing.
J. Dean @ 146
And going unused, aren’t these tools more subject to challenge in the future? Seems to me that a crafty defense attorney would challenge inherent contempt in a future case, especially because it’s gone unused in the subpoenas of Miers, Bolten, et al.
The disuse of the Congressional toolkit seems part and parcel of the breakage of our government; why do Democrats not see this?
TSF@139
its as if you read my mind!! that’s what been floating thru my mind b/c the dems want the extended powers also…….didn’t know quite how to phrase this thought…….thnx
And where is there even one still small voice out there demanding prosecutions and sentences?
Your voice, Mary. Thanks.
Mr. Dean you are one of the most important voices of the era and there simply aren’t adequate words to properly thank you for your intellectual gifts, patriotism and books.
((((JOHN DEAN))))
My question if a bit off topic but I am very interested in your POV on the Draft Al Gore movement and if you have ever met with him.
Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The reason we started early today is because of my scheduling conflicts. At 1:30 PT, I have to take a break for a few hours to give a speech here in Los Angeles at 2 pm (about twenty minutes away) and then I must do a radio show on Pacifica Radio with Mark Bebawi from 4:15 to 4:45pm. After that I plan to return to the FDL salon and answer as many more questions as I can before my body’s battery runs down. So I will take a few more now and then return.
While I am gone I would appreciate any FDL thoughts on why it is that Ann Coulter’s books draw such attention when they are so empty of serious content? Who the hell reads her stuff, and why?
it’s way past time for these bastards…impeachment should be ON the table – enough equivocating i say – pass or fail but at least try!!
J. Dean @ 154
Carnivores need to be fed. Her books are raw meat.
big thanks to you John Dean,you were one of the first to recognize the smell in Denmark
clearly this admin needs to be prosecuted. it makes my mind real when people such as yourself make excuses for the people in power. not enough time? those kinds of answers are the reason we are in so deep right now. this country has never wanted face it’s demons. and until we face the truth, we can not recover.
Welcome Mr Dean you are a beacon of light in all this darkness. I learn so much from you and especially enjoy your spots on Olbermann.
How would rightwingnuts like Malkin and Coulter
et al be viewed by Republicans circa 1960’s?
I.m late to the party; I’ll just say Happy Birthday and thanks for all your insights.
Now I’ll go read the post and comments.
Again, thanks for your time.
Mr. Dean during the John Bolton nomination hearings I clearly remember Senators Kerry, Biden, Kennedy, Lincoln Chaffee, Dodd and a few others being extremely angry that NSA intercepts that they had been demanding had yet to be turned over by the Bush administration. They looked so angry with Bolton that I thought they were going to jump over their desk and release some whoop a–.
Rumors had it that John Bolton had accessed these intercepts and that his access was highly suspect and allegedly “illegal” and that information gathered via these intercepts were used to undermine negotiations between Colin Powell, Iran and other nations.
What do you know about these intercepts and have they ever been turned over to congress?
uhhhh mr dean… re coulter’s books – purchased in blocks to boost her sales by winger groups cuz you know they DON”T get read – just my thought anyway lol
J. Dean @ 156
John, it is because the people that read her love her screeching. They are screechers like her. They aren’t reading for content, but for shock value, for damnation of the Democrats and “liberals” or anyone like them. People who like her are mostly authoritarian, I believe, and you now how they love to hear themselves rant. And the more nasty, the better.
Because she is a lawyer, I am even more offended by her libelous and outrageous comments and behavior.
juslin @ 155
Impeachment is insufficient. Bring ‘em to justice as a lesson to others.
its her bizzness model dontcha know Donny Deutch
Mr. Dean, thank you for speaking out, and doing your best to shed light on what has been going on in our country.
Do you think it possible that Congress could offer the telcos immunity in return for all the information on surveillance during the Bush administration? I have been waiting for someone in this administration to come forward, but it seems you have no counterpart in this day and age. In light of that, I think we have to find some way to get at the information by alternative means.
If it was proven that Qwest was approached to spy BEFORE 9/11, I should think impeachment would be a given.
No. 54 – QUESTION: What part have Presidential “signing statements” played in our Broken Government?
ANSWER: I discuss signing statements at some length in BG, and what a president can and should do if he truly believes he is being required by a Congressional veto override to enforce an unconstitutional law. Unless Bush is actually NOT enforcing all the laws he has addressed in signing statements, they have had no real impact on broken government. The more important question is whether Congress will dig out whether he is in fact NOT enforcing these laws and do something about it if that is the case. Here is where impeachment would have to be on the table?
BE BACK SOON.
Mr. Dean, in complete seriousness, I don’t think most of the purchasers of her book read it for the ideas (such as they are) contained within.
I fear the answer to Ann Coulter’s popularity is not lofty intellectual compatriots, but inciting adrenalized mastubatory fantasies that reflect well not on her, nor her readers, nor our democracy at large.
Sorry to lower the tone of the conversation, but it seems to me that’s where La Bete Ann lives.
Ann Coulter is not one of your prime examples of aging with grace.
Mr. Dean, towards the end of Broken Government you attribute a quote to an anonymous former Nixon administration official as saying (loosely) “ My advice is that Americans should not vote for ANY Republican….”.
(another ‘deep throat’ mystery! As someone who has studied the Nixon administration at length this question is driving me nuts.)
Question 1: Is there any chance you could reveal who this official is here in this forum? If not, at least a hint?
Question 2: Also, based on what you know of Fred Thompson, from the Watergate era to present, how would you classify him regard to the Authoritarian Personality?? (double high, etc.).
I would like to sincerely thank you for your contributions to our Country. You are among the greatest living Americans in my opinion. Thank You for all that you have done, from saving the country from ruination in the early 70’s to you recent trilogy of books that once again may help save us from committing national suicide.
In answer to Mr. Dean’s query, I think Coulter’s books are popular because she provides sympathetic fodder for likeminded people at an emotional level. I don’t think many of the people who like her stuff are really interested in her “facts” (or her fabrication thereof), but rather they like her message and her willingness to express opinions that they themselves cannot give in polite society. I know that’s why some of my more rapidly Republican acquiantances like her.. they also buy her books because they want to support her “right” to spew opinions that comport with their world view, against their perception that the PC crowd (us) is out to censor them. They think she’s being brave.
J. Dean @ 154
I wish I could help. The one person I know who likes her, thinks she is funny. I can’t figure it out. I think she says the things he wants to say but doesn’t dare. Or she validates his POV. Not really pretty to see.
this salon has been soooo refreshing to this girl!! thanks mr dean and ms cassel….this is quite a birthday you’ve scheduled mr dean – enjoy yourself – it’s your day ;o)
I suspect only a few actually read the books. Mostly bought for the F*You factor.
J. Dean @ 156
She’s sexy and snarky. Appeals to the Rush crowd, I’d guess–or anyone who likes cheap shots, hates liberals, and doesn’t care to think. (Full disclaimer: I haven’t read any of her stuff myself.)
My guess is that very few people actually read them. Book clubs owned by wingers buy in bulk, then sell them for a buck to new members of the book club. The leftovers probably get destroyed. Publishers don’t care, a sale is a sale.
I know many people interested in politics, and they span the political spectrum. None of them has ever read any of her books, even from the library.
Thank you, John, and thank you all for participating. Those of you who had browser issues, thanks for your patience.
I will sign off now, and encourage you all to read all of John’s books, if you have not done so.
His “trilogy” has revealed the flaws at the heart of government today. We can only hope that John is right when he says there is hope with the Dems.
Thank you all and once again, thank you and Happy Birthday, John.
TeddySanFran @ 151
Contrary to what the ReichWing scum would have you believe I don’t think that Congress’s powers disappear if not used. Atrophy, perhaps but not disappear.
What we need to do is act as steroids in the body politic; building new muscle mass and ‘Roid Rage in our political institutions so they can overpower the ‘conservative’ attacks on our freedom.
In all seriousness we need to keep the pressure on Congress using every means at our disposal from Code Pinkers on Miss Nancy’s sidewalk to primary challenges to Bush Dogs and Bitches, to supporting civil suits against the TelCos.
We must mobilize, not ‘to the barricades’, but to the attack. We must attack the Fascistii posing as ‘Conservative’ in this country and destroy their ideology by showing the citizens that progressives have the answers to the problems we, as society, face.
If we do this we can send the cancer of ‘conservative philosophy’ into retreat.
J. Dean @ 154
She says out loud the kind of bigoted stuff that too many folks on the far right wing would love to say themselves. Hearing their own racism, homophobia, etc. being spewed out by someone like Coulter gives them something to hold onto when their narrowmindedness and lack of logic gets questioned.
Even better, she gets paid to say these things, which strikes these same folks as the best job in the world.
While Mr. Dean is away and people are catching up:
OT – For those who missed Jane’s poll Friday, there is an unofficial Triple Poll that addresses some of the issues brought up in the comments.
The Results are on a free service with annoying advertisements and audio, so please forgive the inconvenience. It does have a pretty bar chart that makes it easy to read. The poll is still open if you want to add your votes.
How do we get some type of independent investigation of the entire NSA wiretapping program? And I mean all of the programs, as Gonzales mentioned that TSA was only one part of it.
I don’t really trust inept Congressman and their overworked staffs to be able to truly analyze what’s been happening since before 9/11. Who is independent, yet has the proper security clearance to view such documents? Maybe Fitzgerald?
Loo Hoo. @ 169
That’s funny.
J. Dean @ 154
I sure do not know anyone who reads her books. I think the same folks who became intrigued with an investigation of lies under oath about extra marital hanky panky are the folks who read Coulter.
Coulter is like a bad case of herpes.
Scarecrow @ 157
I’m not willing to accept, in the absence of hard data, that her books actually do ’sell’. I have a sneaking suspicion that they are a ‘vanity project’ for the likes of Scaife and other such uber-rich scum. Off to Google same, will report findings later.
J. Dean @ 153
I’ll gladly defer to others, but imvho, the right wing think tanks
in name only, wholaunder ill gotten proceeds from K Street Republicans, probably buy hercrapjunk in bulk early to create a buzz.Do you think it likely that if the Dems win in 2008 there will be a kind of truth and reconciliation process as they had in South Africa and Rwanda where Everything comes out starting with the Clinton persecution and impeachment, SCOTUS decision to elect Bush, etc. Because no matter who wins, I cannot bear the thought of all the high crimes and misdemeanors being buried forever?
Loo Hoo. @ 171
Yes, watch the recent clip (YouTube? I forget) of her claiming (to Deutch) that Jews need to be “perfected”. She really looks like she’s on something (coke? speed? or the like..)
Way back at Comment #131, John Dean said this:
That’s exactly it.
The only way you really lose is if you give up.
PeterK @ 188
Perhaps we could try to stick to the substance of Mr. Dean’s question.
Elaine Cassel @ 52
Why in the world would you now add Abu Gonzales to the list for impeachment? I thought impeachment only removes the person from the position of authority that they occupy, but does not impose criminal sanctions or punishments of any sort. Can you impeach someone who has already voluntarily left office just so that they could never serve again? Also, if Abu or anyone else were to be criminally prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, could they serve again, or do they lose that ability when they lose their right to vote? Does Charles Colson, for instance, ever get to serve again if someone wanted him to? Did he ever regain his civil rights, including voting rights? I think I remember that you spent some time in prison due to your involvement with Watergate (okay, so I don’t like that much since you were the one who came clean,) but have you regained your right to vote?
J. Dean @ 154
I agree with the other commentors… those who buy her books only buy them to reinforce their world view and not for any enlightenment… although I hang out in various bookstores and have never seen anyone purchase one.. ever– if I did, I would ask!
And I was just thinking yesterday that AC seems to be the Andy Kaufman of the political pundits… she has said so much inflamatory stuff over the years that she is just growing tedious and ridiculous.
Elaine says,
I have also considered that Dems want to keep these powers. Therefore it seems to me it is important that We The People shout as loud as we can we disapprove and will do all we can to ensure there is no difference in which party has them, they are not democratic (with a small “d”) and they are wrong, so do the right thing and renounce them. I can now see giving up on impeachment for this time while the legislators take care of other things.
BUT maybe it is time to ask for assistance with some progressive non-profits such as Working Assets, MoveOn, and others to begin the drum beating for the next president. We could let candidates know we do not give a rat’s behind about flag burning or school prayer issues and that they need to take up the issues many of us here care about until they cannot silence it any longer. I am sure others here have better ideas, I am just trying to throw some ideas out here to begin the process of convincing these Dems they have some work to do.
My 2 cents
Cat In Seattle
John Dean @ 154 asks:
That is a question that many Fire Pups wonder about quite frequently. My guess based on some snippets of evidence is the books are purchased by some of the wing nut welfare groups in bulk so that she becomes a “best seller.” Then at some point in the next few weeks after the purchase, we start seeing ads that read: “And with your generous donation of (fill in the blank – $5?), we will send you absolutely free, the latest book by best selling author Ann Coulter.”
In other words, no one with a brain makes the purchase and actually reads her drivel.
RBG @ 191
We are. This is relevant–maybe her books appeal to addicts :-) .
Happy birthday, Mr. Dean.
You have my respectful perception as a conservative of intellect and reason, of whose ilk communicating and problem solving with will be a preliminary necessity to the repair of the damage done by the unanswered malfeasance of the last few decades.
Every carny needs a geek. Big carnies need several…And there’s never a shortage of rubberneckers who wish to gawk at them for their own dark reasons, fulfilled preconceptions and so forth.
I suspect that her sales numbers are somewhat inflated for purposes of advertising.
Coulter is a useful spearpoint, injecting the unspeakable into the public discourse so that others may gibber and meep. I would put forth that applying qui bono as a standard would create a breadcrumb trail as to who presents her and why.
OT Tutu invited back
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iow…..vited.html
Minnesota school reverses course,
reissues invitation to Tutu
I don’t think that many people buy Coulter’s books. Most of the people she appeals to don’t buy books. I think conservatives buy them by the carton and use them to get the fire started in their mac truck sized fireplaces in their baronial mansions.
Please pardon this academic question: Was reading Tom Paine recently, and he used the term “(elective) absolute monarch”, with each word carrying its own meaning: not all monarchs are ‘absolute’ and some even are (or were) elected (a Polish example was given).
Bush calls himself The Decider. He is presently effectively free from oversight. He issues Signing Statements that strike down whatever laws he dislikes.
Is Bush an ‘(elected) absolute monarch’?
Would using a term like this, with a long history, be effective in battling the present situation, rather than using such neologisms as “Unitary Executive” and “Unilateral Presidency”.
darkblack @ 196
darkblack you beat me to it.
Cat at 192: To your point about pledges from current presidential candidates, two organizations — one left, one right — are doing exactly that:
Jane has a new thread ready.
Mr. Dean will return later this evening, so check back as he continues to answer your questions.
Jane Hamsher @ 200
Mere happenstance
;>)
I think Mr. Dean has a really good point – if media immersion is important, and she’s so fact free, how do we penetrate with the truth?
A. Citezen: We must mobilize, not ‘to the barricades’, but to the attack. We must attack the Fascistii posing as ‘Conservative’ in this country and destroy their ideology by showing the citizens that progressives have the answers to the problems we, as society, face.
Yes, yes and yes, BUT… the Mighty Wurlizer, Coulter included, have so poisoned the waters against anything we say that who’s gonna believe us? This is one of the supreme frustrations. We need a new approach. I don’t got it. You?
Mama Jane’s got a whole new bag upstairs.
;>)
J. Dean @ 154
Happy Birthday John Dean. It is my birthday too!! What a treat to have you here.
As far as Ann Coulter goes, I know that she is friends with Bill Maher for one thing. I have often thought that she is the ultimate political satirist…and the joke is on everyone else since they buy her books and/or take her seriously…or..she is just a fanatic that spews out hate-laced venom, and is basically a rather unenlightened moron whose books sell to others like herself. Go figure.
Question: How far will Cheney go to maintain power? I find it difficult to envision the day he packs up his boxes full of “history” and hits the road. Just my cynical 2 cents! :}
PeterK @ 178
Uhhh, she’s sexy??? Everyone to their own I guess (sigh).
At any rate, I don’t think Ms Coulter is selling that many books. The last time I was at the university bookstore, I saw a big stack of her books in the discount bin selling for $2.00 each, lol. But then I will say, perhaps this is because visiting a university bookstore was loitering within the domain of the Evil Empire (snark).
Cat In Seattle
Mr Dean, thank you for joining us. Good luck with the ride to your speech: I hope you don’t have to endure the 405 on Sunday afternoon.
(Awful….even before the I-5 fire)
Ugh! Coulter is an attorney? Yecch.
Oh well – sigh – Kervorkian was a physician.
To address your question:
Coulter’s shtick (predictably making controversial statments) serves to progressively desensitize viewers to Authoritarian ideology and values.
You seem to be a “word person” – I’m one too.
Yet our central nervous systems are hardwired to make decisions based on subjective responses.
(Our disgust reflex when we smell or taste spoiled food is an obvious example: IIRC babies around the world show the same innate pattern of responses to noxious odors associated with putrefying food – even in the absence of any prior exposure).
Self-disdain, self-contempt, and even self-hatred – pretty common experiences for human beings in miserable circumstances who lack the opportunity to change ther situation.
With real wages stagnant since 1974 , educational opportunities sclerosed for all bu the upper class, an epidemic of obesity associated with poverty (forcing people to purchase the cheapest calories, which are also the most unhealthful), saturation diets of TV/cable (hours per day for the average American), and the pervasive infotainment message that we should all look like the cocaine-thin starlets and steroid-pumped
waitersactors -Americans who lack media literacy are guaranteed to feel something on the scale of disdain to contempt to hatred for themselves.
And that’s no accident: the psychology of mass advertising is to create personal dissatisfaction and discontent.
How else to constantly push people to go buy crap they don’t need in the first place?
Convince them there’s something wrong with them for not having “it” – all the “its”.
A house in Malibu Colony – and the one in Brentwood. Perfect teeth and skin. A size two. The body of an athlete….
Not so much fun to watch from the trailer park or the apartment or the house in the neighborhood of dead lawns spouting cars on blocks.
So – despise yourself – or despise someone else?
The professional “shockers” Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Savage, Coulter) channel the self-loathing and self-hatred out to some external target.
Projection is the unconscious defense mechanism that ascribes to others the precise qualities the projector finds intolerable in him or her self.
The most obvious example is the closet stuffed fuller than a clown car of flaming GOP/clergy with rabid anti-GLBT stances.
Wide ones, natch.
The Coultergiest and her ilk releive the self-haters by placing the constant self-denigration onto an external object.
Projection – like all defense mechanisms – is unconscious. So the self-haters aren’t aware that Coulter helps them turn their corrosive self-perceptions onto some external object.
For the projectors, the choice of object is irrelevant – whatever is at hand will do.
Like those Jews who just need polishing up.
Alas for the self-haters, the relief is only temporary. After the derision, their lives haven’t changed – fat and economic privation and miserable surroundings don’t care if we’re deriding Ted Kennedy or the godless libs.
But the momentary relief is strongly reinforcing, holding out the experiential promise that – if you listen/watch enough – you can feel really good for a moment.
Hence the reflexive audience for the next Coulturd of a book.
Coulters’ funders care very much which objects she offers up for denigration – and she obliges.
Guaranteeing her the wingnut welfare conveyor book of bulk book purchases, publisher-subsidized “book tours”, and friendly talk show hosts.
when you were involved with the republican party, were you aware of their deep nazi ties? ibm, dupont, ge, gm,standard oil,chase, goodyear, prescott bush sanctions, attempted military coup vis-a-vis gen smedley butler. if not, are you aware now? and if you are aware, what do you about it? you chose this type of atmosphere. what does this say about what you wanted for this country? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/…..40,00.html
Thank you both!
and Happy Birthday, JD!
Happy Birthday John Dean and LS.
Stevie Wonders Happy BIrthday song (dedicated to Martin Luther King’s) is one of the best!
Happy Birthday to you from Stevie Wonder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..mp;search=
What a way to spend your birthday Mr. Dean..trying to save the constitution, and stand up for justice! Thank you!
ou know it doesn’t make much sense
There ought to be a law against
Anyone who takes offense
At a day in your celebration
‘Cause we all know in our minds
That there ought to be a time
That we can set aside
To show just how much we love you
And I’m sure you will agree
It couldn’t fit more perfectly
Than to have a world party on the day you came to be
Chorus
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
(Repeat)
I just never understood
How a man who died for good
Could not have a day that would
Be set aside for his recognition
Because it should never be
Just because some cannot see
The dream as clear as he
That they should make it become an illusion
And we all know everything
That he stood for time will bring
For in peace our hearts will sing
Thanks to Martin Luther King
Chorus
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
(Repeat)
Bridge
Why has there never been a holiday
Where peace is celebrated
all throughout the world
The time is overdue
For people like me and you
You know the way to truth
Is love and unity to all God’s children
It should be a great event
And the whole day should be spent
In full remembrance
Of those who lived and died for the oneness of
all people
So let us all begin
We know that love can win
Let it out don’t hold it in
Sing it loud as you can
Chorus
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday
(4x)
(Background Stevie)
Happy birthday Ooh yeah
Happy birthday,
To you
We know the key to unity of all
People
Is in the dream that you had so
Long ago
That lives in all of the hearts
Of people
That believe in unity
We’ll make the dream become
A reality
I know we will
Because our hearts tell us so
To respond to John Dean’s question about Ann Coulter. This came up yesterday at Digby’s place
I addressed the why here, but I also want to address the “what to do about it.” Which is especially frustrating because it just never stops. Ann Coulter knows the game. She said as much in this video during the LAST outrageous statement she made at the CPAC convention.
(warning. Ann Coulter video and on a possible NSFW site-)
What we really want to know is what can we do? Plisko. Is there a way to short circuit this process?
Part of the game is to get ahead of the curve.
Last year I used a tactic to deal with a similar situation where someone like Coulter was looking for press. I wrote the producers IN ADVANCE of them booking her and said something like this, “Are you a broadcast journalist?” If you are, and feel the need to do a story about this controversy you don’t need her. She is using you and playing you as a fool to generate PR and money. If you want to be used, go ahead and do the standard story. Or don’t cover it, it’s not really newsworthy. But if you do, how about you “balance” Ann Coulter with another popular author who is a NY Times best seller like Glenn Greenwald. If you don’t want a best selling author to talk to at least book someone who isn’t insane. The ghost of Edward R Murrow is watching.
Then we need to suggest WHICH experts to discuss the “controversial” issue that has raised. We can also suggest they discuss the meta topic of “why must the media cover Ann Coulter?”
The point here is that we need to give them an alternative that will be interesting and entertaining. If we say, ‘Please, no more Coulter!’ they will ask, “So who do we book instead? Who has the juice, the crazy excitement that Coulter brings?”
Suggestion:
This time around her controversy involves Jews and Christians. How about having on a Christian who believes that Christians are “perfected Jews”? Also suggest a Christian who can point out to the first Christian that 93 percent of the Christian churches do not hold Ann Coulter’s medieval view of Jews (That stat is based on a study done about radical fundamentalist Christian churches). This person might even point out that in the Christian Church that Ann says she belongs to, does not hold that view either.
If you want to have a discussion about conversion of Jews to Christian, fine, but you don’t need Ann Coulter to do it.
And if you want to make the show even more juicy, have on a Jew who disagrees with Medieval Christian guy. Then the Jew can ask, “What is this, the middle ages? Do you really still believe that my people need to be perfected?” Excitement! Hilarity! Ratings!
This whole process will do four things.
1) Take Coulter out of the promotion picture faster
2) Set up better spokespeople to address the issues
3) Point out just how nuts Coulter’s views are when reiterated by someone else who supposedly believes them.
4) Give the producers what they want, the X vs. Y story that can provide the excitement that they claim they must have in order to compete in the ratings.
Some reproducers have a cynical “I hate the game but I have to play it for ratings” view. For them it is almost like, “If Ann Coulter didn’t exist we would have to create her for ratings.” By providing an alternative that is interesting, we might be able to damp down her bookings.
Mr. Dean while it seems the political pendulum in this country is swinging back to the middle.
How do you personally deal with the death , destruction and the Iraqi refugee disaster that the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq has caused?
How can we as a nation ever be forgiven for such an unjustified and immoral war?
John Dean:
This, from Media Matters, is part of the explanation to your question about Coulter:
http://tinyurl.com/2s53hq
LS @ 207
It’s not as if Cheney hasn’t packed his boxes and moved on from a high government position before. I don’t find it difficult to envision that day; I really can hardly wait to see it, in fact. If he tried to maintain his hold on power for whatever reason, all I can say is, nobody comes out alive in this world and he’s already had several heart attacks. He can’t live forever!
kirk murphy at 209. Nice analysis above.
And one thing that I left out that Kirk reminded me of. Funding. Who will fun the work that will help provide an alternative to Coulter? We are operating on a shoestring and they have a well funded team pushing the product onto the media conveyor belt.
Mellon Scaife and Rev. Moon can afford to lose 20-40 million dollars each year on their publications. That doesn’t even begin to address the money losing operations of the think tanks that shove their product (books, Op-eds, “expert” interviews) into the media. Think about it (pun intended), the right wing think tanks are NOT a money making venture.
They promote a pure capitalist model, yet they never generate significant revenue from their products. Their whole business is a loss leader for their funders.
Someone throws money at them every year. Millions. They don’t make a profit…for the think tanks. But someone believes in their role strongly enough to fund them to a tune of millions of dollars per year. They don’t have to show a profit, they don’t even have to provide a quality product. All they have to do is push books, articles and opinions that the funders desire into the media. That is their primary function.
Funding is needed for the activities that can neutralize the influence of people like Coulter and the think tanks.
I don’t know who are the funders of THESE activities. I’m not sure who has the financial power to battle these people. The right whines about George Soros, but he is one light on the left against billions on the right. (Brock’s book The Right Wing Noise Machine documents this)
I do know that Coulter and her funders have pushed radically dangerous views into the world which have lead us into the mess we are in today. I’m doing what I can to battle her ilk, but it is exhausting and expensive.
John Dean:
First, happy birthday and may you have many more, hopefully in an America finally coming to her collective senses and restoring the primacy of the rule of law and the Constitution that is its core for the American society/governance/social contract by the next one. I have been horrified watching this transformation, something I first started fearing could happen (and then was happening, although how far it truly had progressed was always a large uncertainty variable for me, alas it turns out my worst case probabilities have either been accurate or worse understating reality) ever since I first saw the rise of movement conservativism in America and the fusion of the religious right with the rest of the GOP to the point of becoming in the end the face and primary public focus of what being a “good” Republican is. Once the fairness doctrine was abolished I really started to fear, and what I saw in the 90s of the GOP noise machine and what they were able to not just get out there but also manage to keep from being exposed (hence HRC’s vast right wing conspiracy comment being seen as out there despite it being no less than the absolute truth, as it is out there to attack all Dems in their way whomever they happen to be) I was truly becoming alarmed. Then the 2000 elections and the fallout from them happened and the true nightmare began.
While I happen to prefer the system I live under here in Canada, I always was very impressed with and respectful of the underlying reasons for the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the remarkable separation of powers to prevent single interest/party/person rule. I never thought I’d see the day that a Congress would so easily hand over its prerogatives and Constitutional powers as I watched the GOP hand over to Bush. By the time the Dems came back into power after being effectively shut out of the preceding six years (except for that 20 months period of control of the Senate between 2001-03 with crossing of Jeffords with 9/11/01 happening only four months later with the inevitable nullifying any advantages that provided the Dems to do oversight they would have had to work with otherwise) the damage done to important functions of government as Justice, Military policy and resources, International affairs, Economics, indeed effectively the entire Executive Branch has been perverted into a supporting a political party’s interests first instead of the national interest first, as things like the prosecutor firings and the former Dem governor Seigalman(sp) convicted in a *VERY* suspect process from beginning to end are illuminating. These things as bad as they already are I truly believe are the tip of the iceberg in terms of the totality of damage and perversion of the institutions of government Bushco has done with the full and active aid of their GOP allies in both houses of Congress.
Now I laid that out to show where my thinking is and why. My question(s): Given the preceding and accepting that it is a close description of the reality, how can the true damage be corrected short of a process on a par/level with the Truth and Reconciliation process SA went through? I do not say this lightly, but without impeachment to truly expose just how much damage and to what intensity has been done to the American institutions of government that Americans have relied upon throughout the history of the nation what else can do the job? The courts have clearly been stacked in favour of the GOP and worse the Federalist Society. The Congress has had its powers eviscerated with the full cooperation and aid of the GOP for six years to the most power hungry and willing to show it President (truthfully the VP, but Bush is the one with the title so he still has the ultimate responsibility/blame) in American history. The free press has completely failed in its role as the afflicter of the comforted and the comforter of the afflicted and its civic duty/responsibility in a democracy as defined by the US Constitution as an independent check on the power of government, especially as regarding the rights of the citizen. So how else to clean up the muck from this Augustian Stables?
As to the Ann Coulter question, besides the many excellent responses already provided I would add another. That being the understanding that those who do read/buy her works (aside from the wingnut welfare aid, I am sure it is responsible for a significant percentage of her sales but alas not obviously the bulk/majority of them) live in a perceptual reality where the world around them is filled with and controlled by conspiracies of shadowy liberal elites, the omnipresent liberal ones from the media to Hollywood puppet masters controlling Dem Congresscritters to those rich liberal elites like Soros funding anti-American movements of unpatriotic America haters, etc. To be willing to speak out against those evil and powerful controlling liberals Coulter appears brave and unbowed by such powerful forces of darkness and the more that liberal crowd (being everyone outside of the approved movement conservative/GOP sources that is) gets upset the more she has proven her bravery in saying what they also tend to think about these issues and liberals generally but are afraid to for fear of the repercussions to the ordinary man from such powerful forces as those liberal conspiracies running things behind the scenes. I think that is at the core of those that buy her book to read and agree with and why she has as much success in that regard as she does even factoring in the bulk buys of her books that also clearly occur. That this world of conspiracies I described has no connection to reality and never really has is alas also at the core of what I am most afraid of regarding these folks. They are effectively brainwashed with very strongly programmed blind spots, and getting past the barriers pout in the way of overcoming those blind spots will not be easy. After all, if you cannot agree on basic facts nor that your disagreeing fellow citizen loves the nation as much as you and your side how can there be civil respective disagreement?
Sorry about the long comment Mr. Dean, I hope you do not mind too much. I want to see the America I grew up being able to respect even when I had disagreements with specific government policies and leadership throughout my lifetime back again, or at least as close to it as possible given the damages done to reputation and credibility regarding moral and ethical issues by the GOP. I want to see the separation of powers complexity being celebrated again instead of shredded and concern for being mocked as far left/liberal extremism, it was a marvel of dynamic balancing of the powers of government and until recently had shown itself to be remarkably resilient. I only hope and pray that it is able to survive even this, but I have to say I am not as confident of this as I would like to be (or would have been less than a decade ago now), and believe that it is imperative and utterly impossible to occur without a massive exposure of what has been done in the past seven years now, which goes to the heart of my question regarding the process to manage to achieve this.
Thank you very much for providing hope and the work you have done reminding many that to be conservative is something worthy of respect when it is principled conservativism unlike the movement conservatives and what the GOP has become. Thank you for being a man of honour and courage, for between places like FDL and folks like yourself on the conservative side of the spectrum I can still hope that the real America of decency despite its warts, of idealism and the need to strive for them, of respecting all citizens, indeed all human beings as equal before the law no matter who they are, what they look like and how much they are worth is not gone forever. It is a very dark period of history for the USA and the world IMHO, hopefully we have passed the darkest part of the night and the dawn is nearly here at last.
May I repeat this question, this time addressing Mr. Dean by name; politer, and maybe he searches for his name to find the questions? (Tried to edit using Opera, but there seems to be a browser thing with this thread; using Firefox at the moment.)
Dear Mr. Dean,
It is an honor to be able to ’speak’ to a man who played such a big role in “Watergate”, that saga that held my attention for months, ‘way back when. Still don’t like the way it turned out.
Please pardon this academic question: Was reading Tom Paine recently, and he used the term “(elective) absolute monarch”, with each word carrying its own meaning: not all monarchs are ‘absolute’ and some even are (or were) elected (a Polish example was given).
Bush calls himself The Decider. He is presently effectively free from oversight. He issues Signing Statements that strike down whatever laws he dislikes.
Is Bush an ‘(elected) absolute monarch’?
Would using a term like this, with a long history, be effective in battling the present situation, rather than using such neologisms as “Unitary Executive” and “Unilateral Presidency”.
PeterK @ 176
Oh, man! I love sexy and I love blondes, but Ann Coulter? I mean, I feel bad about unintentionally objectifying women but even if she were prettier I would gag. When I see her, I see Medusa — the snakes are disguised.
I think the stats reflect big sales but they lie — if it weren’t for the Richard Scaifes of the world buying her books by the pallet, she’d be paying for the extras herself.
Yuch!
juslin @ 58
ANSWER: See my response re the effective use of obstructionism by the GOP.
John,
While we wait for others to reappear, let me express the enormity of my respect for you. There are so few who have cogently pointed-out the bad acts of the new Republican right and you did it in the face of tremendous social and political (and perhaps financial) risk. Thank you. Dick Smith
J. Dean @ 221
Dear Mr. Dean,
I read the thread all afternoon while you were here. I join in with the other FDL pupsters in wishing you a happy birthday, and thanking you profusely for spending so much of your special day with us! There were so many great questions from others, I won’t add any more- and will await your wise input to us. Thanks again!
Happy Birthday!!! Mahalo for your tireless service to our country!!! 8-)
Sorry I missed the book salon earlier but I just downloaded the book (love the audiobooks on my iPhone!) and went jogging for 30 minutes. (Just finished up Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine and it’s outstanding also, BTW.)
Anyhoo, questions on my minds today:
1. Directive 51 – Would this allow, legally, for the suspension or delay of the ‘08 election? ANy voter recourse?
(1 b. Posse comitatus suspension: Could Blackwater (or any other private company) be loosed upon the populace to tamp down on angry voters?)
2. Is Rummy still at the Pentagon?
3. Can the State Dept be forced to use US military security rather than Blackwater’s mercenaries (paid for by taxpayer funds)?
Oh, and loved the first two books! Thanks and happy birthday!
Mr Dean, thanks for all you are doing. I watched you during the Watergate hearings and thought Nixon would have survived in office if you hadn’t had the courage to step forward. Do you agree? Are Republicans so clueless today that no one is willing to “talk”?
As one who likes the details of history I’m curious. Do you recall where you were, who you with and your initial reaction upon hearing Archibald Cox had been dismissed?
Happy Birthday, Mr. Dean!
Thanks to you and Elaine Cassel for joining the Lake today.
(and thanks to our Book Salon editor!)
Mr. Dean,
Thank you so much for joining us today.
I just finished reading Jack Goldsmith’s book, The Terror Presidency. It seemed to me that in his view of the Bush administration’s misadventures, one of the principal, if not the primary, villains is Douglas Addington. Do you agree with that assessment?
Alexandria Critic @220
Oh, man! I love sexy and I love blondes, but Ann Coulter? I mean, I feel bad about unintentionally objectifying women but even if she were prettier I would gag. When I see her, I see Medusa — the snakes are disguised.
I think the stats reflect big sales but they lie — if it weren’t for the Richard Scaifes of the world buying her books by the pallet, she’d be paying for the extras herself.
————————-
If true (and I don’t doubt it) it’s akin to laundering income to her. She *never* accepted money from any of these folks, just did well on her popular book sales.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 228
Aah, the great ‘Saturday Nite Massacre’…!!! ;-)
burnspbesq @ 230
Mr. Dean mentioned earlier in the thread, that Addington was at the top of his Impeachment to-do list…!!! 8-)
I know that impeachment would take a lot of effort and time, but is there a more important job than insuring that the leader of our country isn’t a criminal?
CTuttle @ 233
Impeachment? How about #1 on the DOJ War Crimes list after 01/20/09.
spocko at 217 – thanks so much.
Thanks for your amazing work – spanking hate radio is A Good Thing.
CTuttle @ 232
If John Dean ever has the luxury of time, it certainly would be interesting to have him here to answer such questions. Many of us here at FDL came of age during that time.
I’m rather partial to KKK Rove and Abu G, myself, but, Any Impeachment proceedings would be gratefully appreciated…!!! 8~)
Valley Girl @ 237
Yes’m, I’m a younger Pup, however, I was a double major; Poly Sci/History… ‘Course, that, and $2.50 would get me a cuppa Joe!!! *g*
burnspbesq @ 230
You mean David Addington?
Elaine Cassel @ 57
ANSWER: I addressed this in another question and the key is whether Bush is, in fact, not enforcing these laws. John Conyers reports he is looking at this question.
Peterr @ 60
ANSWER: Other than the legislative branch, where I outline the repairs that the Dems are undertaking, no chance of anything before 2009. After that the Ex. Branch is where the fixes can be made the fastest. The Judicial Branch, because of life appointments, will take the most time, and is the most important issue for the 2008 election, which is currently being ignored.
ccmask @ 61
ANSWER: I addressed this at some lenght in WTW, and it will be one of the first Ex Orders overturned by a new president. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 will prevail. The problem with the Bush Library will be they will have destroyed all documents they do not want seen by the public long before they leave.
J. Dean @ 243
Isn’t this a crime?
Mr. Dean,
I adding more justices to the Supreme Court a possible, legal way to bring balance to the court?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 63
ANSWER: Christy, an NYC attorney told me Judge Mukasey could turn into a nightmare for Bush, because he doesn’t like unaccountability. I only know what I have read in the newspaper, but it was an interesting comment by a lawyer who know the Judge. I have commented in response to another question that the retroactive immunity does not pass the smell test since they don’t know what they are immunizing. The NYT, of course, reports they were working with these companies before 9/11, which raises other questions.
Elaine Cassel @ 65
ANSWER: Thanks, Elaine, could not have said it better.
dmougianis @ 74
ANSWER: Losing. They, like Republicans, like the perks of power. The difference, however, is the Dems like power to help others while the GOP likes it to help there own.
Mr. Dean thanks for coming back.
Before the invasion I was not only reading from the left I was reading what Pat Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Kevin Phillips and other Republicans who were questioning the need for such an invasion and the wisdom of such a move. I was very worried when many Republicans were worried by what this administration was planning.
I was hearing reasoned questions from these Republicans and from General Zinni, Scott Ritter, and many more. In early March of 2003 when El Baradei stated that the Niger Documents and other WMD intelligence were false.
I really knew the world had shifted when I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan more often than not.
When was your breaking point? When did you jump off of this group of Republicans ship? How many other Republicans do you know who are worried about their party?
Mommybrain @ 75
It was an issue that went to the Supreme Court, which shows how out-of-touch the Court is with contemporary civil litigation when they said it would not take much of the President’s time, therefore since it realted to matter before he was elected, they let it go forward. It was a very bad decision, which they will reverse one day — not that they have seen how civil litigation discovery can tie up anyone in knots.
J. Dean @ 248
Answers like that give me hope.
J. Dean @ 248
Good Evening Sir, from Toronto … I thoroughly enjoy your insights and apologize if this has been raised earlier … when Bruce Fein clearly makes the case for impeachment of Bush/Cheney, why are the Dems unable to make the case to the American public and drive this issue ?
Jane Hamsher @ 76
You are correct, Jane. Just one of many thoughts.
Hello Mr. Dean – It is an honor. Thank you for spending time with us.
How do you prove a crime if the stewards of the documents destroyed leave no trace of their existence? If the executive is of criminal intent why would such a mind leave evidence to be discovered at a later date? Is there some kind of oversight in such matters?
TheGris @ 78
Anything is possible, but I have seen no evidence of this, nor heard any such rumblings from others.
Kathleen @ 79
Nothing to gain. It is stupid. It was the wisdom of uninformed “campaign consultants” who told them it was cowardly. I present the empirical evidence from an academic study that shows this is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Cheney’s law Oct 16th. This looks like a must watch.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/
So are Cheney and Addington equal in their lust for promoting executive power? Who is driving who here?
kathleen @ 257
Am I mis-remembering or did Addington testify at Libby’s trial and he was a mealy milquetoast at best? The banality of evil as they say…
Elaine Cassel @ 81
Elaine is more on target for if Bush or Cheney used DOJ to nail someone for political reasons, and in fact did so, that could change the political atmosphere re impeachment. But it would take a clear smoking gun, not speculation or circumstantial evidence.
J. Dean @ 253
If suits against the telcos proceed, isn’t there a *personal* risk for the executives and directors who approved the scheme?
I’m assuming there are plenty of counsel cya letters stashed away pointing out potential problems (the reason some of the telcos didn’t go along).
Is the notion of shareholder derivative actions dead or might some folk’s personal assets actually be at risk?
Ed*ard Teller @ 86
I have not pursued further but I have been thinking about it, and reading a good deal about it.
J. Dean @ 259
Wasn’t it more Rove and his minions than Dick/Shrub???
peony @ 94
They clearly came back to DC with an agenda, and have used 9/11 to furhter that agenda, so it is not surprising they were doing covert activity before 9/11. Cheney loves this stuff, just like Nixon did.
coyne @ 95
No, I never heard that before Bush II surfaced on the national scene. I know Bush II and had dealing with him as White House counsel. He is a very different person than his son. It seems many American businessmen — mostly Republicans — tried to make a buck off the Nazis, overlooking their fascism. Greed is pretty powerful, unfortunately.
Ed*ard Teller @ 98
My Explore is still not working, so I have continued with Firefox.
J. Dean @ 259
Don Siegleman comes to mind. I think that situation was done by Rove, but I don’t know about Bush’s or Cheney’s involvement. He certainly seems to have used the DOJ to pursue charges against Siegleman, but apparently the alleged (or proven) briber said he also bribed Republicans (I believe at least one Senator and some Reps) in the same way but they were not prosecuted. Are you familiar with the case?
kirk murphy @ 99
A couple of major journalistic organizations are digging into this . They have asked me questions about executive privilege questions, and they are digging deeper than current reports. It would be a breach of confidence to report what they are doing, but stay tuned. We may not have heard the end of this story.
Mr. Dean, thank you for all you do….love when you are on Keith’s show, always a must see.
Can you remember a tipping point (or two) during the Watergate investigation? Was that “tipping point” visible to the average citizen? What should we look for as tipping points that this adminstration will face some accountability before vacating office? In other words, what’s the bombshell you look for to say the jig is up for this crowd?
sacrablue @ 105
Be my guest. But you will have to get the Coulter book out of their face to do so:-)
Thank you, Mr. Dean.
You are a very generous man. Here it is your birthday, and you just gave me the gift of a wonderful prospect.
Thanks again.
oddball @ 107
I am not interested in blame or pointing figures, only in resolving the problems. This requires getting the Democrats to take process issues to the voters in 2008. I repeat it is not the only issue, but a very important one that in the past they have deliberately ignored. The more people who understand the issue the more difficult it will be to ignore, thus my efforts.
Happy Birthday Mr. Dean thank you so much for your time, knowledge and insights.
Happy Birthday to LS also.
Scarecrow @ 112
Good question. I am no Pollyanna but I do have faith in about 75 percent of the American people. The other 25 percent are authoritarian follower types who live in deep denial. History suggest to me that when you give the American people the fact — as best and honestly as they can be assembled — they do the right thing. The issues I am raising in BG have simply been ignored. Thus, my effort to get this information out. Thus, if you read the book and find it persuasive pass it on to someone else or spread the word.
The paraphrase, we can never let the pursuit of the perfect prevent our attaining the best possible. I think people understand the past five plus years for exactly what they have been, and the GOP nominee is going to turn on Bush and claim he is his own man. But remember the Bush/Cheney administration has spent the past six years ignoring the Civil Service laws and placing those who share their thinking throughout the executive branch, embedded to extent their view of government into the future. Much house cleaning needs to be done as well.
J. Dean @ 261
First I’d like to thank Mr. Dean, and of course FDL :), for bringing these constitutional issues into the public discourse. The FDLers have asked the subtenant questions I’ve had in mind and I am hopeful that the presidential candidates will start addressing these questions.
Question: Are there any mp3 formated archives of your speeches?
J. Dean @ 271
I heard Senator Sherrod Brown say something similar when I was asking him (when he came to visit our town) about holding those responsible for creating, cherry picking and desseminating false pre-war intelligence. Brown responded with “we do not want this to turn into a blame game. I responded “sense when did holding people accountable for serious crimes” become blame instead of Justice?
It would seem a huge part of “resolving the problems” is holding people accountable for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions, so that serious mistakes are less likely to happen in the future.
No. 112 continued, and sorry about those typos, I submitted before ready.
Bottom line, we have no way to know that electing Democrats will solve the problems I am raising, but it is better than the alternative of ignoring these issues, and not challenging the Republicans on them.
Returning late to the thread . . .
Many thanks to you for all of your work, for being honest, for exposing lies when you hear them, for promoting understanding of what we all are trying to deal with, for analyzing the situation in a logical, legal, and hopeful way.
I was listening to the phone conference call you did for the SoCal ACLU and you seem to have far more hope than I do. For all of our sakes, I hope that you are right, that there can be corrections to the system that seems to have been driven off its rails.
Please don’t be a stranger to the Lake. We love your presence whenever you are able. You have much to contribute to the dialogue.
SanderO @ 113
I have no idea who advised them to take it off the table, but suspect it emerged from conversations in their caucus and among the leaders. (I have explained in other responses what it was not an unreasonable decision.)
peony @ 114
Good idea.
barb in west yellowstone @ 115
I made that comment based on conversations I had with John Conyers. I think he thought that to be the exactly what he would do until the leadership took it off the table. I know that was not his call, but he is a team player, so acted accordingly.
Mr. Dean, What purpose did the announcement of(the shot heard round the world) taking impeachment off the table serve, other than infuriating the Democratic base?
Elaine Cassel @ 117
No question John thinks so:-) See the last page of the last chapter of BG.
John Dean “I am no Pollyanna but I do have faith in about 75 percent of the American people. History suggest to me that when you give the American people the fact — as best and honestly as they can be assembled — they do the right thing.”
I sure witnessed this before the invasion. I spent hundreds of hour audio taping over a thousand middle class Americans at the anti- invasion marches. It was amazing how much time many of these individuals had spent digging for more info before the invasion.
I was also able to audio tape lots of old timers and Vets in small towns in southeastern Ohio who hung out in VFW’s, Moose Lodges and Bingo halls before the invasion. Many had very serious questions and questioned the hogwash they heard coming out of the Bush administration about Iraq. If these individuals had had verifiable and legitimate information before the invasion they would not have supported the Bush administrations
actions.
I believe what Mr. Dean has said whole heartedly if you provide “most” American people with substantiated information I believe they will make a fair and just decision.
That sure did not happen with the Bush administration
AlexandriaCynic @ 121
Permit me a trite but true response: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It will be a constant battle — today, tomorrow, and forever. While there will be good periods, trouble will alway be approaching. Utopia is foreign to our species. Just think how boring it would be if otherwise.
I will add another voice to wish you a happy birthday and many more, thanks for taking time this day here.
Someone mentioned that Addington was rather lacking in dynamism on the stand at the Libby trial. Good lawyers are often good actors.
How potent has Addington been and how much power does he have?
Happy birthday, Mr. Dean and thank you for this opportunity.
As you note one big problem with the impeachment option (it takes almost 2 years) that suggests a president has carte blanche to do any foul deed in the final 18 months.
Do you think it’s time to push a Constitutional amendment forward that provides a series of penalties more serious than censure but short of impeachment? Or a clear statement that an executive can always be prosecuted after their term ends, with no time limits?
Liberty Lover @ 128
I have not interest in office, only in being an honest broker of information about government and politics. Not to mention I could never spend every day asking people for money, which is what elective office has become. And leads to your question.
Actually, I was heartened by the recent WSJ front page story that reported large numbers of economic and business conservatives leaving the GOP because of its incompetence, excessive interest in social issues of little real importance to any other than the religious right, etc. They are taking their money with them. Understand what drove many corporations to special interest contributing and lobbying was their competitor would doing it when the GOP arrived and took control of Washington. Businessmen don’t like having to play politics, but under the GOP so much money is being spend on private sector contracts that they had no choice. I see this pendulum starting to swing, and subcontractors or subcontractors or subcontractors like Blackwater could help change the privatization of government. So could about about three decades of Democratic control of the White House — which is not impossible.
Mr. Dean, You were great on the Tavis Smiley show. More succinct and powerful in the delivery of your message than ever. Thank You for being a voice in the wilderness.
Bluetoe @ 130
I see this with any authoritarian organization, which the GOP has become (and the Democrats are anything but).
Kevin Hayden @ 286
I know this is the current common wisdom but didn’t the impeachment “process” only last months before Nixon finally resigned in Aug 74?
And can’t we be sure that if we just started impeachment hearings over the smallest of infractions that the hearings themselves would crack open the entire criminal enterprise?! I mean, we know so much already that’s impeachable. Just imagine what we don’t know?!
Kathleen @ 162
To my knowledge they have not been provided to Congress, and doubt they will.
J. Dean @ 276
In re, to cleaning house, I fear that it would be trumpeted as a ‘Partisan Witch Hunt’ and legally barred… The bitter irony oozes out of the contaminated well…!!! 8-(
J. Dean @ 242
IIRC this is exactly the logic that the Republicans used in their bold power grab: Of the three branches, the Executive can act most quickly, and can establish “facts on the ground.” The Legislative branch can pass laws, but that takes time, and the executive can veto the laws. The Courts normally take the longest time because they are vulnerable to dilatory tactics.
So Mr. Dean, if you could, in order to restore the balance of powers, how can the speed of action factor be equalized so that the Executive branch no longer has such an advantage?
Bob in HI
hayduke @ 171
I don’t like unidentified sources but I could not resist quoting this old friend when he said I could off the record. To identify him would serve no purpose, other than to cause him problems. I ranked the GOP contenders in BG and Fred is higher than Ron Paul but not close to Rudy.
valletta @ 258
IIRC, Addington was remarkably frank, acting like someone who believed 100% that what he did was right, and who was utterly unconcerned about consequences. He also appeared to have absolutely no moral compunctions or remorse about anything. Kind of like a Mentat in DUNE terminology, or a Vulcan in Star Trek terms.
And thank you, Mr. Dean, for coming back to answer more questions!
Aloha,
Bob in HI
J. Dean @ 248
It’s a heartening answer – heartening to hear that you do not find anything more sinister at work (especially you, who witnessed so much sinister behavior from so close)
If I could be permitted a follow up (dont know if you’ll get to it.) Is the answer to how we influence the Dems then just plain old citizen activism? Can it really be that simple?
Ms. Coulter is just like any other strike-breaking goon hired by management. Her job is to inflame and destroy any unity of the People by inspiring destructive thoughts.
She’s a union buster who works for Rich people (they buy her books).
A nurse – with two adult children in the army -neither in Iraq – was reading How To Talk To A Liberal If You Must. She listens to Limbaugh and watches Hannity and O’Reilly. She spouts bootstrap pulling thousand points of light anti-welfare rhetoric.
She is beginning to waffle a bit.
Hello Mr. Dean. I am almost 16 years old and have not had a chance to vote yet. Do you think that it is possible in Washington to get back to a government of the people, by the people and for the people? Right now it is BY the companies and FOR the rich people.
Mr. Dean;
I am very glad to count you among us and may you enjoy many more journeys around the sun.
I am gravely concerned that much of ‘official’ malfeasance, be it Iran-Contra
etc. and Bush-Cheney, having gone unremarked and unpunished, does not bode well for our future as a democracy, near-term or ‘distant’.
Given that some 75 percent of ‘the people’ are indeed capable of ‘getting it’; is there no educational value in the Democrats moving towards impeachment? The ‘people’ would clearly understand the difference between the absurd impeachment of Clinton and the dire Constitutional necessity to deal, somehow, with Bush-Cheney.
Should the Democrats NOT do what is right, that will be understood as well. Then, the Democrats might really face losing – it is a bind. However, while claiming to be the ‘opposition’
party, their behavior seems more like appeasement than principled opposition. They have done a monumentally poor job of ‘explaining’ their decisions and come across as irked that we even dare question their choices and their ‘wisdom’.
I have inferred from your earlier comments, that you think a Democratic President would delve into what has gone on and (hopefully) assess responsibility for the ‘decisions’ which allowed and encouraged what has happened.
Is this wishful, hopeful thinking on your part, or have you nuanced reasons for clearly raising our hopes?
OK, here’s the solution. When the new president is elected (a Democrat of course), he/she declares the 2000/2004 elections fraudulent and declares all Bush orders/signing statements/supreme court appointments void. And, when Republicans complain, the new president can bring out the Bush response of “If you don’t like it, what are you going to do about it?” Ahhhhhh, all will be right with the world.
John,
In case you stop by again, I just want to thank you for all you’ve done and continue to do. And thanks for the Herculean effort of addressing all of these questions. I know it’s hard to keep up with us fans. ;)
Please know you will always be welcome at the lake.
God bless you, sir.
My wife, Mo, who has been following my entries while preparing a B-Day dinner, tells me that I am obviously tired from a rather full day of events in addition to the time I have been able to visit FDL, for my typos are increasing. When She To Whom I Must Listen speaks, and suggest I call it a day and head back to the house from my office for dinner, I follow her advice.
Before signing off, however, I want to thank Elaine for hosting, and all of you for your participation and your many B-Day greetings. The questions were as provocative and interesting as usual, I can’t think of a nicer place to have spent the bulk of my B-Day, which is why I scheduled it today.
If anyone has a burning question that I have not answered please send it along to this email address and I will answer it: brokengovernment@gmail.com.
Finally, I look forward to getting back in contract with the FDL community to distribute copies of BG to Democratic nominees for the House and Senate.
Until then, all best wishes.
We are privileged to have you as a visitor, Mr. Dean, and a force for sanity. Happy Birthday, kiss the wife for all of us, and we look forward to your next visit.
Mr. Dean, your understandable pragmatism aside with respect to the impeachment issue, where do you think we’ll be in twenty years with respect to foreign relations if we fail to investigate the causes of this unprovoked war with Iraq now, as opposed to waiting until we have a democrat as president with a sixty plus vote senate majority?
Mo Dean, thanks for taking good care of John. He is a treasure.
Thanks for responding to my question up at #31, Mr. Dean.
I think your use of the word rigged in the book is what prompted my questions about ‘misperception’. Thanks for clarifying what you meant; botched is rather different than rigged.
Happy Birthday and hope to see you soon, either here or on Countdown.
John, best wishes for you and Mo this night – and all the days and nights to come.
(Out of respect I’d prefer to call you Mr. Dean, but “best wishes for you and Ms. Dean” sounds like a megacorps’ holiday card…)
And Ms. Dean – thanks for letting us “borrow” your husband today.
Mommybrain @ 306
Seconded enthusiastically.
Thank you for your time John Dean, we all here were most honoured by your presence and your willingness to answer as many of our questions as you were able speaks highly of your willingness to do that which you ask of others, something far too lacking in the so called conservatives of NA these days. Which of course is something you have noted yourself on more than one occasion. I look forward to reading your words for many years to come; I have been a fan for many years now. Good luck, take care, and be well.
its been an honor and a privilege to have you on the lake – after all the lake here is like no other…thanks mr dean and ms cassel – team FDL what a day!! my cap’s off to yah ;-)
Many thanks to FDL for putting this forum together and many thanks to Mr. Dean for taking time out of his special day to answer our questions.
Good work guys. Much appreciated.
J. Dean @ 303
Thank you Mo Dean for allowing us to spend this time with your dear husband. Your willingness to allow us to tap into your husbands knowledge wisdom and experience on this special day says a great deal about you. Many blessings to both of you and your family.
J. Dean @ 276
This is what is even more frightening, that the Democrats will not really enforce their constitutional right to hold the executive branch ACCOUNTABLE. The Democrats seem far too chicken shit to hold the Bush administration accountable for their most serious crimes. Yes the Democrats have been implementing many investigations and yes some have resigned, a few have gone to jail. We still have officials ignoring subpoena’s, and the Bush administration ignores demands for pertinent documents and intercepts.
Senator Rockerfeller has yet to complete Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There has yet to be one person who has been held accountable for creating, cherry picking, and disseminating false intelligence which the invasion of Iraq was based on.
Holding those responsible for this unnecessary and immoral war in Iraq is the very least THE VERY LEAST that our reps can do for the hundreds of thousands of people (both Iraqi and Americans) who have lost their lives, been injured and turned into refugees due to this immoral war.
The American people and the whole world is watching. Some of us are calling, writing and lobbying for Justice.